1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant establishment registration of a mortgage”) was completed with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff on the ground that the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on August 1, 201 with respect to Defendant B, the debtor D, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 390,000,000 with respect to the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant establishment of a mortgage”) with respect to the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the supplementary registration for the transfer of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant establishment registration”) was completed on May 4, 201 with respect to the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), may be recognized by the statement in the evidence No. 1.

2. The plaintiff alleged that he decided to sell the instant real estate to the non-party Eul, and the non-party Eul decided to resell the instant real estate to the non-party Eul. In fact, although Eul intended to complete the registration of establishment of the instant real estate to repay its investment debt to the defendant Eul, it decided through Eul that "the plaintiff would be expected to obtain a balance for the purchase of the instant real estate after being supplied with frozen meat from the defendant Eul, who is the land owner, thereby creating a mortgage on the instant real estate." The plaintiff had the plaintiff complete the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate, and the defendant Eul also knew of the aforementioned deception, and therefore, D's act of completing the instant mortgage through the above method is fraudulent and revoked by delivery of the complaint of this case.

In addition, Defendant B transferred the instant mortgage to Defendant C with concerns over the cancellation of the registration of establishment of the instant mortgage, and such transfer constitutes a juristic act of anti-social order and thus null and void as it constitutes a false declaration of agreement among the Defendants.

Therefore, Defendant C cancelled the registration of the instant mortgage transfer to Defendant B, and Defendant B did so to the Plaintiff.