1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 1998, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in [Attachment List 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from C from August 31, 1998 to KRW 13 million, and began to reside at the place where the instant real estate was handed over after paying the deposit.

B. On December 9, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D, the wife of C, with the purchase price of KRW 50 million for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and transferred the down payment of KRW 5 million to the head of Tong C on the same day.

The Plaintiff and D agreed to substitute 13 million won out of the above purchase price as the above lease deposit, and agreed to pay only 5 million won with the balance of the sale until December 26, 2005, instead of the Plaintiff’s acceptance of all the burden of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, etc., which was completed on the instant real estate by the time.

C. The Plaintiff’s KRW 500,000 on April 11, 2006, and the same year

5. 9.1 million won was remitted to each Tong C. D.

On the other hand, on July 12, 2006, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the debtor C, a mortgagee, the defendant, and the maximum debt amount of 50 million won with respect to the building among the real estate of this case. On the 19th of the same month, C entered into an additional mortgage agreement with the same content as to the land among the real estate of this case, and completed each establishment registration (hereinafter "establishment registration of a mortgage of this case") to the defendant as stated in the purport of the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s establishment registration of the mortgage of the instant case was established by C to borrow KRW 50 million from the Defendant, and the Defendant did not lend KRW 50 million after only the right to collateral security was established. Therefore, the establishment registration of the mortgage of the instant case was null and void because there was no secured debt. Even if there was a domestic and secured debt, the Defendant is also liable.