1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2007, the Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul District Court Decision No. 51418, Songpa-gu, Seoul District Court Decision No. 51418, Jun. 30, 2007, registered as the ownership of Nonparty C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), registered the establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant mortgage”) with the Defendant as the mortgagee, on the ground of the mortgage-backed claim amounting to KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000 as the maximum debt amount, and the debtor C’s agreement on the establishment of a mortgage as of July 27, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff, as a creditor of C, applied for a compulsory auction on the instant real estate, and the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the instant real estate to Seoul Eastern District Court I based on the instant collateral security.

C. The above compulsory auction and voluntary auction case were in progress, and there was a distribution of the auction price to the creditors. While the Defendant received the dividends of KRW 272,80,921 on June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff did not receive any distribution at all at all by the Defendant, etc. in the priority order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties concerned is null and void by a contract with a false conspiracy under Article 108 of the Civil Act, which is concluded for the purpose of evading compulsory execution even though the right to collateral security in this case does not have any obligation, and therefore, the dividend distributed to the Defendant on the basis of the instant right to collateral

Therefore, without such wrong dividends, the plaintiff's claim amounting to 60,000,000 won, which was distributed to the plaintiff, is claimed against the defendant in direct or in subrogation of the non-party C.

In regard to this, the Defendant decided to purchase the instant real estate in C to KRW 280,000,000, and paid in full the purchase price of KRW 280,000,000. However, even though the instant real estate was invalidated within the land transaction permission zone, the Defendant concluded the instant mortgage contract with a view to securing a claim for the refund of the purchase price paid when the sale contract becomes null and void.