1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 2002, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 70 million from the Defendant (the loan account No. B; hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”) and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) of KRW 84 million with respect to the loan account No. 182m2 and the building on the ground owned by the Plaintiff (the loan No. B).

B. On November 26, 2002, the establishment registration of the instant neighboring building, which was transferred to Kim Sea-si, was revoked on December 9, 2002 on the following occasions: (a) around December 9, 2002; and (b) around December 10, 2002, the establishment registration of the instant neighboring building, which was transferred to Kim Sea-si D, was revoked on December 10, 202.

C. On September 16, 2003, Nonparty E, his wife, accepted the instant loan agreement and changed to E, and the debtor of the instant loan was also entitled to make a supplementary registration changing to E on the same day the debtor of the right to collateral security remaining in the size of 85 square meters in Kimhae-si after division.

On September 17, 2003, the Defendant drafted a loan transaction agreement of KRW 70 million with E on September 17, 2003, and treated the loan balance of KRW 60 million as repayment and terminated.

E. The registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring land, which had been sold on July 30, 2014 and remains on the said real estate, was revoked on August 29, 2014 in the F voluntarily auction procedure, which was commenced upon the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring land in the Changwon District Court following the division.

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

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, prior to the acceptance of the instant loan contract by E, the amount of KRW 60 million for the instant loan obligation should be appropriated for the instant loan obligation, which was deposited around December 2002 by Kimhae-si, which was deposited at around December 2002, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant loan obligation amounting to the amount equivalent to the amount that the Defendant withdrawn without permission should be deemed to have been repaid, since the Defendant withdraws without permission and uses it in other places, and the interest already repaid with other loans is double

Before the determination of the merits is made.