1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 4, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered to the Defendant a loan certificate of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. On September 4, 2012, with respect to the land for factory C, 3254 square meters owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed on September 4, 2012 with respect to the land for factory C, 3254 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of creation of a neighboring district of this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The borrowing of KRW 100 million from the Defendant alleged by the Plaintiff is not D but D. At the time of the above borrowing, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff’s husband E to provide a security, and prepare the instant loan certificate in the name of the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of establishment of the instant root.

After that, D repaid a total of KRW 60 million to the Defendant, and at the time of the repayment, the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff to cancel the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring area to the plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement.

B. The reasoning of the judgment is insufficient to acknowledge that D borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant, or that the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff at the time of cancelling the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring area of this case, solely with the testimony of the witness D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was merely recognized as having cancelled the registration of the establishment of the neighboring area in the F name on September 6, 2012, after borrowing KRW 100 million from the Defendant on the same day as of September 6, 2012 and discharging the obligation to F by borrowing KRW 100 million from the Defendant and discharging the obligation to F, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.