1. The Defendant received on December 31, 2013 from the Suwon District Court for the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On December 31, 2013, with respect to real estate stated in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage near the main text of paragraph (1) with the debtor as the Plaintiff, the mortgagee as the Defendant, the maximum debt amount as the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount as KRW 80 million.

(B) On July 6, 2015, the Defendant had completed the auction procedure of the said real estate based on the instant right to collateral security.

(C) The Plaintiff asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was revoked on the ground that the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case was a copy of the complaint of this case, and that the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was revoked on the ground that it was not actually received KRW 75 million. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was revoked on the ground that the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case was by deception.

As to this, the defendant and D agreed to receive the tax expected to incur approximately KRW 70 million from E in the business jointly promoted with E, and the plaintiff set up the instant collateral security in order to provide a security to it as a surety, and only the name of the debtor was the plaintiff, not E, but the name of the debtor, and the name of the mortgagee was the defendant, not the defendant and D.

Judgment

As to the defendant's assertion, it is difficult to believe that the each entry of Eul Nos. 3-1 and 2, which seems consistent with it, is hard to say, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, even if the defendant's assertion is recognized as true, the mortgage of this case is invalid according to the nature of the mortgage because the registered debtor and creditor's name are not consistent with each of the secured obligations claimed by the defendant.

On the other hand, however,