1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to the building owned by the Plaintiff (name E prior to the name of the Plaintiff), the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “G’s collateral security”) consisting of the Plaintiff, the mortgagee G, the maximum debt amount of 15,000,000 was terminated on November 22, 2010 by the Ulsan District Court, Ulsan District Court, as the Plaintiff, the mortgagee G, and the maximum debt amount of 15,00,000, was cancelled on June 25, 2012.

B. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was cancelled on March 16, 2012 as the debtor, mortgagee, H, maximum debt amount, H, 15,000, and the maximum debt amount, which were KRW 15,000, as of October 4, 201, the Ulsan District Court Decision 79252, which was received on October 4, 2011. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was cancelled on March 16, 2012. The Ulsan District Court Decision 50857, which was received on June 25, 2012 by the Defendant, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount, the maximum debt amount, KRW 8,00,00, was the “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage”

(C) On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 13,000,000 to G. D. On May 15, 2014, H died, and the Defendants, who were their children, succeeded to the property. [The facts that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings, including evidence No. 1-1, No. 2,3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15,000,000 from G in a de facto marital relationship with H, and set up G’s right to collateral security. Around March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff fully repaid the secured obligation.

While G did not cancel the right to collateral security, the Plaintiff established the instant right to collateral security, notwithstanding the absence of any obligation against G or H.

The Plaintiff merely borrowed 15,00,000 won from H after borrowing it, and there is no other fact of borrowing money.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void because there is no secured debt.

Sheshe borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from H, and October 4, 2011.