1. The main office of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

A. Attached Table 1.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is between the plaintiff and the husband, and is the owner of each of the real estate in this case or the owner of the relevant share.

B. On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff forged a written mortgage establishment agreement with the Defendant, the mortgagee, the creditor, the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 3 billion.0 billion on the ground of the forgery, the Plaintiff completed the establishment registration of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 through 12 on October 5, 2016 as the receipt of the registration office of the Daegu District Court No. 159818, and as regards each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 13 through 20, as the receipt office of the registration office of the Daegu District Court No. 26393 (hereinafter “the establishment registration of each of the instant neighboring real estate”).

C. On September 9, 2016, the Daegu District Court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation to the effect that “the Defendant shall implement the procedures for registering the creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to each of the instant real property to the Plaintiff, with respect to the creation of a mortgage agreement, KRW 3,000,000,000, and the debtor, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee, on March 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant ruling of recommending reconciliation”).

On September 9, 2016, the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case was served on the Plaintiff, and on September 12, 2016, it was served on the Defendant’s domicile as the Defendant’s resident registration and served on the Defendant.

On September 13, 2016, the response, which was written under the name of the defendant, was received from the Daegu District Court on September 19, 2016, stating that "I have no objection to the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case", and the plaintiff did not submit a written objection within two weeks from the date of service.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant, at the Daegu District Court on October 18, 2016, issued a written objection to the instant decision on the recommendation for reconciliation on the ground that “the Defendant did not have received the instant decision on the recommendation for reconciliation because the married couple, who had the same purport as the Plaintiff, resides in his domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration.”