1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Basic Facts

On January 18, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant to obtain a loan of KRW 220 million (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). In order to secure the said loan obligation, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant to set up a collateral security agreement (hereinafter “instant land”) with the intent to set up a collateral security agreement on the land of KRW 1,581 square meters, O 1,380 square meters, P 562 square meters, C 2,104 square meters, D 1,303 square meters, E 1,303 square meters, E 1,01 square meters, 532 square meters, G 872 square meters, and G 872 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant with the maximum debt amount of KRW 38 million regarding each of the instant lands in accordance with the contract establishing a mortgage of this case.

The Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction with Suwon District Court Branch H on the basis of the instant collateral security (right to collateral security) and rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction on December 11, 2012.

On October 30, 2013, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 227,709,300 from the proceeds of the sale of each of the instant lands as the applicant-creditors and collateral security holders, who were concurrently filed for an auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

【In the absence of dispute, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment of the entire pleadings, and Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s Nos. 1 and 2 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant with his/her ability to properly read or write the letters, and entered into a contract for lending money and a contract for establishing a right to collateral security with respect to each of the lands of this case to secure this, and thus both the above loan agreement and the contract for establishing a right to collateral security are null and void.

The registration of the establishment of the Defendant’s neighboring land of this case is null and void as above.