1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

A. With respect to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”), the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on April 21, 201 (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) as stated in the purport of the claim purport, which reads “contract on April 21, 201,” as “the maximum amount of claims KRW 360 million, the debtor, the creditor, the Defendant, and the grounds for registration.”

B. On April 21, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted an agreement on a loan for consumption (Evidence A 1) with the term “the principal of the debt is KRW 360 million, the creditor, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the due date for payment on December 21, 2011.”

(2) In order to secure the performance of the obligation, the agreement on the loan for consumption provides that “In order to secure the performance of the obligation, the right to collateral security with the Plaintiff and the maximum debt amount of KRW 360 million shall be established in the future against each land of this case.”

【Ground of recognition】An absence of dispute, and description of Gap evidence 1

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The loan for consumption in this case is a loan agreement under which only the name of the party is the original defendant, and in fact, the defendant's misleading C is the creditor, and D is the debtor.

Therefore, a loan for consumption between the original defendant is nonexistent or null and void, and there is no mortgage contract.

B. Even if the loan contract of this case is valid, the contract of this case was concluded by mistake by deceiving the Plaintiff’s husband E and C even though the Defendant did not actually lend KRW 360 million to the Plaintiff. Thus, it is revoked or cancelled on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.

C. Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled upon extinguishment of the registration cause, or the registration of the title trust with the Defendant, who is not a creditor C, as a mortgagee, should be cancelled as the registration of the title trust in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under

3. Determination

A. Recognizing that the Plaintiff voluntarily prepared the evidence No. 1 as to the validity of the loan agreement of this case, it is contrary to the content of such disposition document.