1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On January 15, 2014, with respect to the Seoul Mapo-gu Land and the ground buildings owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s mother, KRW 216,00,000,000 with respect to the maximum debt amount, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage bank against the Defendant, the Defendant, and the Defendant-mortgage Co., Ltd. was completed.

B. On February 5, 2014, the establishment registration of a new real estate and the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was completed on the following occasions: (a) the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000,000, and the debtor C and the mortgagee; and (b) the establishment registration of a new mortgage against the mortgagee;

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case”) C.

On January 22, 2015, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the above bank was cancelled due to the cancellation, and C paid KRW 75 million to the Defendant. On April 8, 2015, only the registration of the establishment of a separate real estate among the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the instant case was revoked, and the instant real estate remains intact as it is.

From C, on April 14, 2015, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on the ground of donation from March 12, 2015, and on April 17, 2015, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of E was completed on the ground of a sales contract made on April 21, 2015.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on January 15, 2014, C took out a loan of KRW 180,000 from the bank in the name of the Defendant as collateral; and (b) at the Defendant’s request, the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage; (c) thereafter, C took full repayment of the said loan; and (d) C gave the Defendant KRW 75,000,000 out of the purchase price of the sale of a separate real estate, and therefore, C did not have any secured claim as to the instant floating mortgage.

As to this, the Defendant promised to donate a total of KRW 300,000 to the Defendant, F, and J, i.e., to the Defendant, F, and children other than the Plaintiff and I, who are a large father, and established the instant collateral security for its collateral. Therefore, the secured claim is the secured claim.