1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on December 18, 2014, concluded the instant mortgage agreement with respect to each of the instant real estate on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, both creditors and the Defendant; (b) the obligor C; and (c) the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff of the collateral security.

B. Based on the conclusion of this, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the vicinity of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 28122, Dec. 22, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the vicinity of the Daejeon District Court") by the debtor C and the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,50,000,000.

A. [Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply)

Section 4. Each entry in Section 4.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant decided to lend KRW 1 billion to the Plaintiff and set up a collateral prior to the delivery of the loan to secure the loan claim. The Defendant did not pay KRW 1 billion to the Plaintiff or C who entered into a contract on behalf of the Plaintiff. As such, the registration of creation of a collateral of the instant case ought to be cancelled as the registration of invalidity of cause because the relevant secured claim does not exist.

B. Even if the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is not null and void, the instant mortgage contract is concluded on behalf of the Plaintiff without any authority by C, and thus null and void, or it should be revoked as C was concluded by deceiving D, which was the representative director of the Plaintiff. Thus, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case should be revoked.

3. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the non-existence of secured claim 1) E filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against C with Busan District Court 2012Gahap22153, May 16, 2013, and the above court rendered a judgment ordering C to pay C the amount of KRW 498,00,000 with respect to KRW 400,000 with respect to KRW 400,000 with respect to KRW 30% per annum from August 1, 2010, KRW 98,000 with respect to KRW 98,000 with respect to KRW 20 per annum from February 7, 2013).