1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “E. Defendant sold real estate listed in the attached Table 1 to L around February 21, 2019, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 8, 2019.” On November 21, 2018, a mortgage contract and superficies contract were concluded with MA and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage and superficies on the same day with MA as of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2; and on November 21, 2018, a mortgage contract and superficies contract were completed with MA on the same day.” Inasmuch as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance are the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment, except for addition of evidence No. 31 in the attached Table 2, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with approximately KRW 520 million as the purchase price of the instant real estate, and acquired the instant real estate under the Defendant’s name by lending it under the Defendant’s name. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff and the Defendant arbitrarily disposes of the said real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent. The Plaintiff and the Defendant established a collateral security right to the instant real estate in order to secure the Defendant’s obligation

However, since the defendant transferred the ownership of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 and provided the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 as collateral after cancelling the registration of the establishment of the above collateral on the real estate of this case, and disposed of each of the above real estate at will, it is obligated to pay 300 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion of judgment is based on the fact that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on title trust regarding the instant real estate, and that, if the Defendant disposes of the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Defendant would pay KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff. The above facts of recognition and the Defendant A.