1. The defendant shall receive on August 7, 2001, machinery, such as resident support, etc. with respect to the area of 2,440 square meters in Daegu District Court prior to C before residing in B.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Daegu District Court for a payment order against B, etc. for the payment order of KRW 6 million and the delayed payment damages therefor, as the resident residence support 2013 tea584, and around that time, B did not raise any objection to the said application, and thus, the said application for the payment order became final and conclusive.

B. On the other hand, on August 7, 2001, B completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 9 million with respect to the land owned by B, under Article 15732 of the receipt of machinery such as resident support by the Daegu District Court (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), with respect to the land owned by B prior to C, at the time of resident registration on August 7, 2001, with respect to the land owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. Insolvent B is insolvent as of the closing date of the instant pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), witness B’s testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the right to collateral security in the name of the Defendant, which was completed with respect to the instant real estate, does not exist from the beginning, or even if the obligation under family security exists, no longer exists due to repayment or the completion of extinctive prescription, and thus, the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the said right to collateral security in subrogation of B as a pecuniary claimant against the Defendant.

On July 25, 2001, the defendant lent 9 million won to B on July 25, 2001 as the due date for payment, and claimed that B was the creation of the instant mortgage on the real estate owned by B in order to secure this, and has not yet been repaid.

B. The plaintiff first asserts that the right to collateral security should be cancelled since there was no debt against the mortgage of this case from the beginning.