The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 250,00,000 to C at an annual interest rate of KRW 15 percent; (b) due date of repayment on December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (c) completed the registration of establishment of mortgage on the real estate listed in [Attachment C-1 and 2 List No. 8215, which were owned by the Gwangju District Court (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the registration of establishment of mortgage on the debtor, C-mortgage, and the mortgagee, Defendant (hereinafter “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage”) as of July 13, 2012.

B. On September 9, 2016, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction based on the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction”) and received a decision to voluntarily commence the auction on September 12, 2016 from the said court.

On August 17, 2017, the above court cancelled the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of the Defendant, which was created on each of the above real estate, while selling real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and distributed 250,000,000 won to the Defendant out of the proceeds of sale equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the instant right to collateral security among the proceeds of sale. On December 5, 2017, the court revoked the voluntary decision on commencement of auction on the ground of excessive sale of real estate listed in the separate sheet No.

(hereinafter referred to as "the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the real estate listed in the attached list 1" (hereinafter referred to as "the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage").

Meanwhile, on April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which is the debtor C and the plaintiff of the right to collateral security, on April 5, 2018, with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 3426, Apr. 5, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the mortgage was extinguished on the ground that the Defendant received a total of KRW 250,000,000 and enforcement costs, which are the maximum debt amount of the mortgage of this case, during the auction procedure of this case.

Therefore, it is true.