1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 2013, the obligor A to establish a mortgage agreement between the obligor A and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant obligor”) entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant with regard to the land and the seven-story building located in Seogu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), whereby the obligor would set up a mortgage between the mortgagee A and the Defendant as the Defendant and the maximum debt amount at KRW 200 million (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”). Based on the instant mortgage agreement, the obligor completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on May 16, 2013, which was received by the Daejeon District Court No. 46585, on the ground of the instant mortgage agreement.

(B) The right to collateral security following the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”).

The debtor of this case, on October 21, 2015, filed an application for rehabilitation procedures with the Daejeon District Court 2015dan519, Daejeon District Court 2015. (2) On March 21, 2016, the rehabilitation procedure began on October 21, 2015. (2) In the rehabilitation procedure, on March 21, 2016, the rehabilitation secured creditor list was prepared with the content that: (a) the collateral security of this case is a rehabilitation security right; and (b) the amount of claims and voting rights as KRW 200,000,000

(3) On the other hand, the above court rendered a decision to discontinue rehabilitation procedures on October 4, 2016 on the grounds that the rehabilitation proposal submitted by the administrator on May 27, 2016 could not be referred to the deliberation or resolution of the meeting of interested persons. On the other hand, the court decided not to submit the rehabilitation proposal to the meeting of interested persons for the examination and resolution of the meeting of interested persons. On the other hand, the court decided not to submit the rehabilitation plan to the meeting of interested persons. On the other hand, there is no rehabilitation plan to be any other proposal to be referred to the meeting of interested persons for the examination and resolution of the meeting of interested persons. C) The debtor of this case against the defendant around 2014.