1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C is among the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 10 and the real estate listed in paragraph 11.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 2010, as to the real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (10) of the attached Table 1, 21/111 shares among the real estate listed in paragraph (11), 228/2172 shares among the real estate listed in paragraph (12), and the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 list (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) and other four parcels, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on April 30, 2010, with a maximum amount of KRW 8.45 billion against the debtor’s Intervenor, the F., the maximum amount of debt amount of KRW 8.45 billion against the debtor’s Intervenor, the Taean District Court of Daejeon (No. 7976 of April 30, 2010).

(B) On December 21, 2015, the part concerning the instant real estate was transferred to the Plaintiff via I, a corporation, etc.

B. As to the ownership of the instant real estate, Defendant C is the owner of the real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (10) of the attached Table 1, 21/11 of the real estate listed in paragraph (11), and 228/2172 of the real estate listed in paragraph (12), and the Defendants owned 1/2 of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2.

2. The Defendants asserted that the waiver of the right to collateral security of this case was null and void as it was aimed at avoiding the provisions of withdrawal of the application for auction under Article 93 of the Civil Execution Act, and that the lawsuit of this case does not have a benefit of lawsuit.

In the lawsuit of performance, the benefit of protection of rights is a person who asserts that he/she has the right to claim performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether there is the right to claim performance should be judged by the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394 Decided October 7, 2005, etc.). Furthermore, since all citizens have the right to trial under the Constitution, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be deemed an abuse of right solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable, and the assertion that there is no benefit of lawsuit should be strictly determined.

Therefore, even if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true, it is sufficient to deny the right to trial.