1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, with respect to the instant real estate, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Plaintiff on February 15, 2017, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day, and on July 26, 2017, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 275 million with respect to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 240,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant collateral security”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the mortgage contract of this case was concluded between the Defendant and Dong G on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not delegate his authority to conclude the mortgage contract of this case to G.

The instant right to collateral security is null and void as it is based on a contract concluded by an unentitled person without the power of representation.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant real estate was purchased by G from the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff, and the actual owner is G.

G entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant upon delegation of the Plaintiff’s personal seal imprint, etc.

G was delegated by the Plaintiff to conclude the instant mortgage contract, and the Defendant had justifiable grounds to believe that G was granted the right of representation from the Plaintiff, and therefore, G did not have the right of representation to establish the instant mortgage contract.

Even if a contract to establish a mortgage of this case is established as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

3. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 12 (including paper numbers) and witness G's witness G testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings.

The following circumstances revealed by these facts, i.e., the title trust agreement between G and the Plaintiff on the instant real estate, appears to have existed, and the Plaintiff, to G.