1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On June 5, 2007, Defendant C and D, while running the bond business together, present a false statement of accounts by threatening the Plaintiff that “I would leave the Plaintiff’s entire property” and, even if having received money from the Plaintiff, would have cancelled the right to collateral security if the Plaintiff did not have the intent or ability to terminate the right to collateral security established on the land owned by the Plaintiff by paying to the Plaintiff to the obligee, and even if having received money from the Plaintiff, he would have cancelled the right to collateral security.

‘Falsely speaking, the Plaintiff received KRW 980,000,000 from the Plaintiff and acquired it by fraud.

B. Although Defendant B did not have any connection with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, in collusion with Defendant C, set up the right of collateral by using the document setting up a blank mortgage entrusted to D or Defendant C, and received KRW 100,000,000 from D without any legal cause on June 5, 2007, out of the above KRW 980,000,000, and Defendant C also received KRW 80,000,000 from D without any legal cause.

C. Therefore, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above amount and the damages for delay as to each of the above amounts, since Defendant C was unjustly unjust enrichment of KRW 100,000 and KRW 80,000 without legal cause.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 5 of the judgment as to the claim against the defendant Eul, the above facts or the evidence Nos. 1 through 28 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the land Jongno-gu Seoul, which is owned by the plaintiff, were revoked on June 4, 2007 on the same day. The above collateral security was revoked on the same day. The plaintiff's cashier's checks paid to D on June 5, 2007 are recognized to have been received by the defendant Eul, but in light of the statement Nos. 1 through 4, it is recognized that the above facts or the statement of Nos. 1 through 28 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) on the land of Jongno-gu, Seoul, which is owned by the plaintiff.