1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2010, a limited liability company E (hereinafter “E”) issued a mortgage registration (hereinafter “the mortgage of this case”) to the Defendant with respect to automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant automobiles”) with the credit value of KRW 30 million as to the instant automobiles as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant automobiles”).

B. On August 12, 2011, E completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant motor vehicle with respect to the Plaintiff, and on July 26, 2013, Plaintiff A completed the ownership transfer registration for 1/100 of the instant motor vehicle to Plaintiff B.

C. Meanwhile, on November 17, 2014, the Defendant applied for voluntary auction on the instant automobile to Suwon District Court G based on the instant mortgage.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 3 and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion E's actual operator completed the registration of the mortgage of this case in the name of the defendant, the author of I, who was in an internal relationship with himself, in order to prevent the obligees' seizure of the automobile of this case, etc., and the actual security obligation of this case does not exist.

Therefore, the mortgage of this case is null and void because there is no secured debt, and the plaintiffs who are the owners of this case seek the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of the mortgage of this case against the defendant by excluding interference based on ownership.

B. Since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs on the instant motor vehicle asserted by the defendant is null and void by a false agreement, the plaintiffs cannot seek implementation of the procedure for cancellation of the instant mortgage because they are not legitimate owners of the instant motor vehicle.

In addition, the defendant, with the trade name of "J", has a claim for rent of 19.8 million won against "J" while operating scke rental business, and on March 9, 2009, 600,000 won to "E."