1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 9, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) (hereinafter “instant loan”) and repaid KRW 10 million each month by July 9, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”). In the event that the Plaintiff did not repay 15 million or more during the three-month period, the Plaintiff was determined to lose the benefit of time, and C, the representative director of the Nonparty Company, guaranteed the said loan debt.

B. On August 9, 2012, Nonparty Company and C issued, jointly, a promissory note No. 100 million won at face value, the payee, and the due date for payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Plaintiff on August 9, 2012. On the same day, a notary public, who delayed the payment of the said promissory note No. 373 as a law firm H deed, entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a promissory note No. 373 to the effect that compulsory execution will be recognized (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”).

C. On October 29, 2012, C: (a) registered the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 432 billion with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) registered the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 432 million with respect to E Union on October 29, 2012; and (c) registered the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 200 million with respect to F on October 31, 2012.

On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction of the instant real estate with Seoul Southern District Court I on December 30, 2014, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction from the above court on the same day, and the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was completed on the instant real estate on the same day. However, on June 10, 2015, the above court revoked the said decision to commence compulsory auction pursuant to Article 102(2) of the Civil Execution Act and dismissed the said application for compulsory auction of the said real estate on the grounds that it is unlikely that all of the instant real estate will not remain due to repayment of the costs and expenses incurred therein, and on June 25, 2015, the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was revoked.

E. C As to the instant real estate between the Defendant, who is his/her father on June 28, 2016, and the Defendant.