1. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant rendered a branch court of Incheon District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"). The defendant is the plaintiff's son C, a female student of the plaintiff.

B. As to the instant real estate on October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 700 million, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the Defendant (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) under Article 106242, which was received by the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court.

C. On November 21, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant real estate with the Incheon District Court Branch, upon the registration of establishment of the instant neighboring land, on November 21, 2013. On November 22, 2013, the Incheon District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 6, and 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) Plaintiff E (hereinafter collectively referred to as “C, etc.”) that is the Plaintiff’s female spouse C and C’s de facto marriage spouse

(F) The building on the F Ground (hereinafter referred to as “F building”) in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

(2) A building owner who substantially newly built F building is the actual owner of F building. However, C, etc., etc., upon requesting the Plaintiff to lend the name of the building owner on account of bad credit standing, thereby becoming the formal owner and owner of F building. 2) C, etc., etc., did not have any substantial claim between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff in order to avoid the obligation to pay construction price to G, a construction business operator incurred in the construction of F building (hereinafter “instant construction”) in the process of construction of new construction of the F building, but completed the registration of creation of the neighboring construction in the name of the Defendant

3) Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case, which is the act of establishing a mortgage of this case, (hereinafter “mortgage contract of this case”).

It is invalid that it has been concluded by false representation of the conspiracy, and it is based on this.