1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as described in paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3) as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “ will be” as follows.

【The testimony of the witness E at the trial as if it were contrary to this, is between the Plaintiff and E, and the E’s statement about the purpose for which the right to collateral security of this case was established is not consistent. In light of the fact that the statement of E on the purpose for which the right to collateral security of this case was established is not consistent, it is difficult to believe the content as it is, and it is insufficient to recognize it differently solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2

3. Additional determination

A. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the Plaintiff’s assertion was made by an agreement on December 30, 2005 between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and E, and the said agreement is in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void.

B. The purpose of the Real Estate Real Name Act is to prevent anti-social acts, such as speculation, evasion of taxes, and evasion of laws, which abuse the real estate registration system by having ownership and other real rights to real estate registered under the name of the actual right holder so as to coincide with the substantive legal relationship.

As to the instant case, the instant right to collateral security was established in order to secure the right to recover the purchase price that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff at the time of rescission of the instant sales contract. Thus, the actual right holder of the instant right to collateral security is the Defendant.

Therefore, since the mortgage of this case cannot be deemed null and void in violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is justified.