1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, except when using “C” of Paragraph 10 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as “N”. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) Whether the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void by a false conspiracy with the other party, the plaintiff asserted that "the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void because H was established in collusion with the other party, who was the Dong, in order to evade the obligation of indemnity against the plaintiff after the occurrence of the insurance accident of this case." The plaintiff claims for the cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case by subrogation of H's heir. 2) The fact that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case was completed after the occurrence of the plaintiff's claim for indemnity, as seen earlier. According to the witness I's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, according to the witness I's testimony and the whole purport of pleading, the defendant is recognized as the fact that H is the

3) However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the completion of the registration of creation of a new collateral in collusion with H and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. In addition, the Defendant is unable to submit the specification of transactions, etc. that paid KRW 75 million to H. However, since it is difficult for the Defendant to secure and submit the above specification of transactions at the time when about 20 years have elapsed since the completion of the registration of establishment of a new collateral, the above circumstance alone alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant in collusion with H and completed the registration of establishment of a new collateral. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit. (B) The Plaintiff’s loan claim of KRW 75 million against H, which is the Defendant’s collateral secured by the instant collateral (this case’s loan).