1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff B is the mother of the plaintiff A.

B. Plaintiff B acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on April 9, 198. On January 28, 2014, Plaintiff B completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant establishment of a mortgage”) on the instant real estate as the receipt of No. 2105 on January 29, 2014, based on the mortgage agreement (hereinafter “instant establishment of a mortgage”) concluded on January 28, 2014.

(Peremptory Amount of claim KRW 300 million, Plaintiff A, and Defendant A, the mortgagee).

On June 30, 2017, the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction procedure”) started to be Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on the Defendant’s motion, sold to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). On October 11, 2018, the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate was completed, and the registration of the establishment of the instant real estate was cancelled on the same day.

After that, on November 10, 2018, Plaintiff A filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant, who is a dividend creditor, with the Daejeon District Court 2018Kadan57099, and is currently pending in the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 30, 31, and 33, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that there was no legal act between the defendant, who is only the plaintiff A and the nominal lender, to establish the secured debt of the instant right to collateral, and the plaintiff Eul paid the full amount of KRW 130 million, which is the loan debt related to the instant right to collateral, to E, which is the actual creditor, the plaintiff Eul has the obligation to confirm the absence of the secured debt based on the instant right to collateral contract, and the defendant has the obligation to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral.

B. The Defendant’s main intent of this case’s right to collateral security was cancelled, and thus, Plaintiff B’s instant case.