1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Southern District Court registry office with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list No. 1.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On November 20, 2012, with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list owned by the Plaintiff, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage as the Defendant was completed on November 29, 2012 by the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Southern District Court’s registration office, Young-gu, Seoul District Court No. 47817, Nov. 29, 2012.

B. On November 20, 2012, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto owned by the Plaintiff, the joint establishment of a mortgage was completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million, the debtor, and the mortgagee as the defendant on November 29, 2012, based on the agreement to establish a right to collateral security on November 20, 2012.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 7 through 55 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the mortgage contract of this case concerning each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 between the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy, and thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of

① The Defendant borrowed money from around 2005 to the Plaintiff on several occasions on the pretext of business funds, etc. However, around 2012, the Defendant settled the amount and deposited approximately KRW 800 million, and accordingly, received a promissory note No. 300 million and KRW 500 million from the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant concluded a mortgage-based contract on each real estate listed in the [Attachment 1 and 2] List owned by the Plaintiff with a claim based on the notarial deed of KRW 300 million.

However, there is no financial transaction that the defendant has lent money to the plaintiff, and the defendant has not given a clear explanation about the source of the money that the defendant has lent to the plaintiff.

② In preparation for the Defendant’s wife who is in an internal relationship with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s wife requests for divorce in the future, or filing a complaint via the parties, the division of property or the complaint.