1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 6, 1990, the registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name was completed on the land of 7309 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Since then, some shares of the instant real estate were transferred to a third party due to sale, etc., and only 51415/365450 shares of the instant real estate currently held by the Defendant, D, 13203/365450 shares, E, and 13232/365450 shares of the instant real estate.

B. On December 5, 1991, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract on the real estate of 100 square meters (hereinafter “instant contract”) with G as a seller, and with G as a sales price of KRW 87 million (the payment of KRW 6 million at the same time as the contract was made, the balance of KRW 81 million was paid at the same time).

C. Meanwhile, with respect to the share of 330/7309 of the instant real estate possessed by the Defendant as of June 2, 1992, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “right to collateral security”) under the name of the debtor as the defendant, with respect to the share of 330/7309 of the instant real estate.

On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff received a voluntary decision to commence the auction from the Seoul Northern District Court H based on the instant collateral security. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage on the ground of sale by voluntary auction on March 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff signed the instant contract with G on behalf of the Defendant to purchase 100 square meters out of the instant real estate, and paid 87 million won to G by March 13, 1992. However, the Defendant did not implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer regarding 100 square meters out of the instant real estate.

Even if G is not authorized to act as an agent for the Defendant regarding the instant contract, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Plaintiff following the conclusion of the instant contract.