1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution, 2017 Chicago10239, September 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate on December 20, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 30, 2015.

B. On January 28, 2016, the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the instant real estate to the Defendant (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) on the ground that the contract was concluded on the same day under the Act No. 4421, Jan. 28, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 250,000,00

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the course of borrowing money from the Defendant, the Plaintiff: (a) issued a certificate of loan with the maturity and interest, etc. in blank; and (b) established the instant mortgage; (c) however, there is no secured claim in the instant mortgage since the Defendant did not have paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff or C with the loan certificate; and (b) the Defendant exercised the right to supplement blank illegally by arbitrarily stating the maturity and interest due, the foregoing loan certificate also has no effect.

2) The Plaintiff was aware that C borrowed KRW 200 million to the Defendant and established the instant collateral security. The Defendant is not C, but D (hereinafter “D”).

(B) The payment was made in advance. This does not have the effect of guaranteeing that the principal obligor is changed regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent as the guarantor. (B) Whether there is no secured debt of the instant right to collateral security (i.e., whether or not there is any secured debt of the instant right to collateral security). However, in fact, C is a debtor, and the said loan certificate is merely a document prepared by the Plaintiff in order to guarantee the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant, and thus, it is premised on this premise. (B) In full view of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence No. 2, No. 2, and No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff from the Defendant.