1. On January 8, 2015, the Defendant caused the establishment of a mortgage contract to the Plaintiff on the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 100 million free of charge to B for the purpose of supporting the relocation of a church, and on January 8, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to B is no dispute between the parties.

B. The evidence No. 4 (No. 4 of the collateral security contract, and the defendant asserted that C had affixed the seal of the defendant to the collateral security contract without his/her consent, and denied the authenticity. However, according to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments No. 3, 9, and 11 of the evidence, C, a certified judicial scrivener, to the defendant in advance, shall be the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter

(1) According to the purport of the entire statement and pleadings, the Defendant, on January 8, 2015, agreed to set the right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million and the obligor B, and on January 8, 2015, with a seal affixed by the Defendant before the Defendant, it is recognized that the authenticity of the above document is recognized. Therefore, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to set the right to collateral security with the Plaintiff, on January 8, 2015.

C. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for establishing a mortgage on the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on January 8, 2015, the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, and the debtor B’s establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate.

The defendant asserts that B created a right to lease on a deposit basis for KRW 150 million on a deposit basis for the lease on a deposit basis for the lease on a deposit basis, and that the plaintiff decided to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis.

However, in full view of the respective statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11, it appears that the plaintiff did not lend KRW 100 million to Eul as above, subject to the condition that the defendant set up a right to collateral security against the right to collateral security against the right to collateral security claimed by the defendant. If the defendant's assertion is true, the plaintiff raised the purchase price with his own own funds and raised the