1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into conciliation with the purport that “C shall pay the Plaintiff money at a rate of KRW 49,370,000 per annum from May 1, 2012 to the date of full payment” on September 26, 2012, upon filing a lawsuit for the claim for the amount of the Promissory Notes in the Daegu District Court Decision 2012Kadan24686, which was endorsed by C around October 201, and that “C shall pay the Plaintiff money at a rate of 6% per annum from May 1, 2012 to the date of full payment.”

B. The Defendant supplied C with textile salt and received a promissory note endorsed by C as the price. The total amount of the promissory note delivered between March 31, 2011 and June 9, 201 has reached KRW 187,649,500 (the payment date of the said promissory note from October 18, 201 to January 1, 201).

Accordingly, the defendant requested C to provide a collateral, and the defendant on June 17, 201, as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") as stated in C, the "mortgage-based mortgage contract of this case" is called the "mortgage-based mortgage contract of this case."

(C) On October 7, 201, C purchased the instant real estate from D, and on November 2, 201, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future of C on November 2, 2011, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 238,00,000 on the same day as the maximum debt amount of KRW 238,00,000, and the registration of creation of a mortgage was completed in the future of the Southern Saemaul Community Depository. On November 9, 2011, the registration of creation of a mortgage was completed in the future of the Defendant with the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000. [Grounds for recognition] The establishment of a mortgage was completed in the future of the Defendant (including each number), the facts that there was no dispute,

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① was invalid since C entered into a false mortgage contract with the Defendant without any ground to evade compulsory execution from the obligees.

② Even if the mortgage contract of this case is not null and void, it is a fraudulent act committed by C, which is in excess of the obligation, with the defendant.