1. The Defendant, among the 1,190.06/1267 shares among the 1,267m2 and the 187m2 of the 1,190.06/1267 shares in Jung-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant with a service cost of KRW 28 million with respect to “authorization, permission, and preparation of design drawings, etc. for electric source housing complex in the Jung-gu, Daejeon and nine parcels of land.” From September 24, 2010 to July 14, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 42,432,600, which is the total amount of the service cost under the design service contract and the service cost for related additional services.

B. Around December 2011, the Defendant prepared a design service agreement with the Plaintiff (representative director I) and “the preparation of a document for authorization and permission for change of the construction site for electric source housing site in the Jung-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City H as the service cost of KRW 22 million, and the date of the contract was retroactive to “ April 201,” respectively.

On December 28, 2011, in order to secure the service cost of April 201, the Defendant was established a collateral security right, such as Paragraph (1) of the order of the maximum debt amount of KRW 23.87/68 of G road, with respect to the share of KRW 265 square meters among the 1,190.06/1267 square meters of Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, which was owned by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, and KRW 187 square meters of the roads owned by the Plaintiff, and KRW 175.64/187 of the F road, and KRW 63.87/68 of the 68 square meters of G road.

hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage of this case" is the "mortgage of this case

(ii) [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap 1-4, 6, 23 evidence, Eul 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s service cost on April 201, 201 against the Defendant, which is the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, was null and void since the Plaintiff’s representative director entered into a false service contract in collusion with the Defendant, and thus, the instant right to collateral security is null and void. As such, the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled upon the absence of the secured obligation. 2) In addition, the instant service contract on April 201 was concluded by I by abusing his power of representation, and the Defendant also becomes null and void in that sense, even in this regard, since

3 Not so far as he or she does not.

Even if the defendant did not perform the above service contract on April 201 to the plaintiff, the defendant did not perform the above service contract.

B. The defendant's assertion is a starting point between the plaintiff and the defendant around April 2011.