1. All of the plaintiff's claims that the court changed in exchange are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the statement No. 5-1 and No. 5-2 of the basic facts:

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale on June 17, 1993, with respect to the housing of two cement bricks, bricks, slives, slives, slives, slives (hereinafter the above site and its ground buildings collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”).

Daegu District Court (Law No. 54575, Jun. 18, 1993). (b)

With respect to the instant real estate, the registration of creation of a mortgage was completed on the ground of the contract executed on April 12, 1994, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 70,00,000, the debtor as H and the mortgagee as the Saemaul Bank of Korea with H and the mortgagee as the Han-dong Saemaul Bank of Korea (Seoul District Court No. 32840, Apr. 12, 1994). The registration of creation of a mortgage was completed on the ground of the contract executed on Nov. 1, 1996, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 182,00,000, the debtor as the plaintiff and the mortgagee as the Daegu East-dong Credit Cooperative.

(Seoul District Court No. 121190, Nov. 1, 1996) c.

As to the instant real estate, the transfer registration of ownership was completed in I on November 10, 1998 due to the sale on November 10, 1998.

Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court No. 120186, Dec. 4, 1998) d.

The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled on November 30, 1998 due to the termination of the contract.

(Seoul District Court No. 120185, Dec. 4, 1998)

A. (i) As to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff’s main intent of the claim, each of the above collateral security rights was established on December 4, 1998, and the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to I on December 4, 1998. The disposal of the instant real estate, such as the creation and sale of collateral security rights, was conducted by E, the mother of the original Defendant, and the Defendant was aware of such circumstances and participated or led in it. Thus, the Defendant is a joint tortfeasor as prescribed in Article 760(1) or (3) of the Civil Act in relation to the disposal of the instant real estate.