1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 461 million to C on September 14, 201; (b) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 590,93 million to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (c) at the time, C prepared a written confirmation to the effect that there was no lease agreement for the instant real estate, which was concluded on the part of the Plaintiff.

Since 2015, C did not pay interest on the loan from around 2015, and the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction on the basis of the aforementioned collateral security, and on December 14, 2015, the auction procedure for the instant real estate (Jongyang Branch D) began on December 14, 2015.

However, in the above auction procedure, the Defendant reported the right to the effect that he entered into a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) as of January 12, 2001 with respect to the instant real estate C and the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of non-existence of the Defendant’s claim for return of deposit for lease deposit under the instant lease agreement (so-called the U.S. High Court Decision 2016Kadan16521), the Plaintiff was sentenced to a dismissal judgment on November 25, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right or legal status cannot be said to have any apprehension or danger, and thus, there was no benefit of confirmation. The said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

Although the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case has the same meaning as the purport of the previous lawsuit, the lawsuit in this case is seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation under the lease contract in subrogation of C as the obligee in subrogation of C, so it is difficult to view that res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous lawsuit also extends to this case.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. As of January 3, 2001, the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation between the Defendant and C is indicated as the deposit for lease on the instant real estate as of January 3, 2001 and the column for the lease period.