1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B (hereinafter “B”) borrowed KRW 520 million from the Defendant on January 13, 2012 to purchase machinery and equipment necessary for factory operation.

B. During the loan process, the Defendant demanded that B issue the certificate of credit guarantee from the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation and offer the real estate owned by a third party as additional security.

B issued a credit guarantee certificate from the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation on December 12, 2011 and provided it to the defendant.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, upon B’s request on December 28, 2011, ordered the Defendant to create a right to collateral security (hereinafter “debtor: the Defendant, the mortgagee, and the maximum debt amount”): KRW 624 million) regarding the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that, if B purchased and installed machinery with the instant loan, the Defendant agreed to terminate the credit guarantee contract after setting up a mortgage on the relevant machinery, and at the same time, cancel the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate.

Since B purchased machinery and completed installation, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the mortgage of this case.

3. In light of the following circumstances, the statement No. 1-4 submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant agreed to cancel the instant mortgage after setting up a mortgage on the machinery when the purchase and installation of machinery was completed. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe the testimony of the witness C (B’s representative director) as it is.

B. The term of settlement of mortgage contract in the instant case merely stated the term of settlement of mortgage as the term of settlement of mortgage, and there is no indication as to the terms and conditions of cancellation of mortgage as asserted by the Plaintiff.

(No. 1). (c)

Witness

D. The defendant's employee of this case.