1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on March 14, 2012, and on November 9, 2011, C completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land with respect to the Defendants’ instant land with the maximum claim amount of KRW 200 million, the debtor C, and the Defendants of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”).

B. C on April 3, 2013, registered the establishment of a mortgage, which is the Plaintiff, with respect to the instant land, the maximum debt amount of KRW 99 million, the obligor E, and the mortgagee, was completed.

The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the Changwon District Court for the instant land based on the foregoing right to collateral security, and the said court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on April 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that C set up the instant right to collateral security with a view to securing obligations that may arise in the future. However, C did not borrow money from the defendants, and C did not have to have the right to collateral security, and therefore, C should have its effect since it did not have the right to collateral security.

The Defendants asserted that G set up a collateral security on the instant land as security for the said claim, on the ground that G had each claim of KRW 100 million against G.

B. In a case where a title trustee, etc. was registered as an obligor according to the convenience of the parties while establishing a right to collateral on the real estate, etc. trusted under another’s name to secure the principal’s obligation, the obligation secured by the right to collateral on the said real estate may be deemed as the obligation owed to the title truster’s creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Da1822, Apr. 22, 1980; 99Da48948, Mar. 15, 2001). Accordingly, the obligation secured by the right to collateral cannot be said to exist.

Gap evidence 1, Eul No. 1.