1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2019 Chicago5017, Sep. 2019

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150,000,000 from the Defendant, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”).

B. As to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate under the Daejeon District Court Branch D, and the decision on voluntary auction was rendered on December 19, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to 6

2. The plaintiff asserted by the parties that, while borrowing KRW 150 million from the defendant, the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the mortgage of this case was completed, but thereafter, he provided E land as security and borrowed KRW 300 million from the non-party F in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, while borrowing KRW 150 million from the non-party F. The plaintiff argued that the registration of the establishment of the creation of the mortgage of this case should be cancelled since it had the non-party F pay the defendant directly.

On February 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received reimbursement of KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff on February 11, 2015; (b) extinguished the secured debt of the instant establishment registration; (c) however, (d) lent KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff on February 17, 201, and agreed to appropriate the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage as security.

3. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 150 million to the Defendant on February 11, 2015, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the termination of the secured obligation.

However, as to whether there was an agreement between the two parties on the usefulness of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of the instant case, the Plaintiff is in accordance with the purport of the entire statement and arguments, as stated in the Ministry of Health and Welfare Nos. 3, 4, and 5.