1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet of facts (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) with regard to the Suwon District Court’s Sungsung Registry as of December 23, 2013, which was received on December 23, 2013, with regard to the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) with a maximum amount of KRW 150,000,000, is either a dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged by the evidence No. 1 and 2.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage in the instant case asserted by the Plaintiff is null and void because it is deemed that the establishment of a new mortgage in the instant case was completed by the deception of the Defendant C.

B. (1) The Plaintiff stated that, after purchasing goods using each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff as collateral, the Plaintiff transferred documents necessary for the establishment of the right to collateral security to C, belonging to the end of C, that each of the instant real estate may be acquired in cash, at a discounted price of KRW 150,000,000. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that C granted the right to represent the establishment of the right to collateral security of each of the instant real estate, and that C created the instant right to collateral security based on the right to represent. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant right to collateral security is void

(2) Furthermore, even if it is deemed that the granting of power to establish the instant right to collateral or the revocation of the instant contract to establish the instant right to collateral are included in the assertion of the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant conspireds with the Defendant to deception the Plaintiff, and even if the instant contract to establish the instant right was granted by deception of family C or the instant contract to establish the right to collateral was concluded by deception of family C, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant was aware of such circumstance, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.