The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The first instance judgment is the purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a member of the successful bid system operated by C as a leading state, and the defendant is the husband of C.

B. On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of the creation of the instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, as the registration and receipt of the Busan District Court KRW 200,000,000, the maximum amount of the claim is KRW 66643, the Defendant of the right to collateral security, the Defendant of the right to collateral security, and the Plaintiff.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security is null and void for the following reasons, or that the secured claim is extinguished, and the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of the establishment of the instant

① The Plaintiff is merely liable for the loan of KRW 200 million to C, and there is no obligation to pay to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff agreed with C to settle the Plaintiff’s claims for return, such as fraternity dues, and the above borrowed money, but the Plaintiff established the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security upon C’s request that the husband confirm the Defendant who is the husband. Thus, the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security is null and void by a false representation.

It is not so.

Even if the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in this case is to secure the Plaintiff’s debt against C, and is null and void since the secured claim was not actually reverted to the Defendant.

② Even if C, around November 30, 2017, transferred the Defendant’s loan claim amounting to KRW 200 million, thereby having become a collateral obligation under the instant right to collateral security.

Even if the transfer of claims between C and the defendant is invalid because it constitutes a litigation trust with the main purpose of having the defendant conduct litigation.

③ Around November 30, 2017, C transferred the Defendant’s loan claim amounting to KRW 200 million.