The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant on May 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) on May 17, 2020 due date.

B. On May 17, 2017, in order to secure a common loan under the instant loan agreement, each of the lands listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) shall be registered with respect to the creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) stated in the Defendant’s name, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 260,000,000, with respect to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”), and completed the registration of creation of superficies stated in the purport of the claim under

C. On May 17, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff according to the instant loan agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 4, 5, 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff did not enter into an agreement on the creation of superficies of this case with the Defendant, the registration is null and void.

B. The instant loan agreement is null and void by means of a false conspiracy, and thus the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage is also null and void.

C. The Plaintiff agreed on the instant loan by hearing the explanation that the Defendant does not assume the responsibility for the instant loan agreement in addition to each of the instant land, which constitutes an error of motive induced by the Defendant and thus revoked.

3. Determination

A. According to the 5-2 agreement on superficies, the Plaintiff is recognized to have signed and sealed the original copy of the agreement on superficies, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

B. According to each of the facts and evidence found that the agreement of this case contains the Plaintiff’s signature and seal affixed to the agreement of this case, there is no side agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was notified of the possibility of auction of each of the land of this case owned by the Defendant’s employee, and these circumstances are recognized.