1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On April 10, 2014, this Court rendered a request for a stay of compulsory execution against this Court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant, who has no secured debt, did not have management difficulties, ordered the plaintiff to take over the plaintiff's business at KRW 1,660,00,000 when cancelling the right to collateral security, etc. on the plaintiff's real estate, with priority loan and use funds, and each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter "each of the real estate of this case").

2) As to the registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the claims stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”).

The Defendant completed the loan. However, the Defendant did not pay the loan to the Plaintiff. However, although the Defendant repaid the secured debt to C, the mortgagee for the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, it was not liable for the Plaintiff to repay the debt, and there was no agreement that the Defendant agreed to pay C the above loan instead of paying the loan to the Plaintiff. The Defendant paid the loan to the Plaintiff at will against the Plaintiff’s will. Moreover, the Defendant is limited to M&C (hereinafter “S”).

B. Although the Plaintiff remitted money to D account, the Plaintiff did not have the right to withdraw the money from EM or D account, did not receive money from EM or D, and only was paid part of the Plaintiff’s loan claim 105,000,000 won.

In addition, the defendant alleged that the payment of the above loan was substituted by the certified judicial scrivener's fees and registration expenses when establishing the right to collateral security of this case, but there is no agreement that the plaintiff bears the above fees and registration expenses, or that it will substitute the borrowed money of the plaintiff.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff prepared an agreement with the Defendant to pay KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant by August 10, 2012, which became null and void by entering into a corporate acquisition agreement with the Defendant around November 2012, and the said corporate acquisition agreement was a contractual obligation under which the Defendant agreed to obtain a loan.