1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2015, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff to purchase KRW 212 from the Plaintiff’s land E, C, and F at KRW 500 million. Of these three parcels, KRW 100 million of intermediate payment at KRW 250 million was the intermediate payment at the time of the contract, and KRW 150 million was the remainder at April 21, 2015, and KRW 150 million was the outstanding payment at the time of the transfer of registration without specifying a separate payment date.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

After that, on May 13, 2015, when the land subject to the instant sales contract was partitioned into C forest land 415 square meters and G forest land 241 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”), the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a sales contract with the same content as before, in addition to reflecting the modified content.

C. On June 12, 2015, in order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation to refund the purchase price under the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, setting the mortgagee as the Defendant, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the debtor as the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount as KRW 180 million with each of the Plaintiff’s shares (360/160) owned by each of the said C Forest and Suwon-si D Forest as well as Suwon-si District 80,019 square meters, with the intent to set up the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”). On the same day, the Plaintiff completed each of the establishment registration of collateral security as described in the purport of the claim to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the instant contract was concluded with the Defendant to guarantee the return of the purchase price, and the Defendant expressed his intent to cancel the instant contract on the grounds that the Defendant did not pay the down payment, intermediate payment, or any other sales price after the instant contract was concluded.