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

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

1. The following facts are found to be without dispute between the parties, or acknowledged in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 13, taking into account the overall purport of the arguments.

A. Of the “Etel” on the ground of the “Etel” owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff: (a) each debtor was F (the representative director of the Plaintiff) with respect to each of the 57 units of the 57 units of the “Etels” (hereinafter referred to as the “Etels”) in Bupyeong-gu Incheon District Court on June 10, 2005, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 160 million to the Defendant C; (b) KRW 320 million to Nonparty G; (c) KRW 160 million to Nonparty H; and (d) KRW 59271 of the Incheon District Court on July 13, 2005, with respect to each of the maximum debt amounts of KRW 530 million to the Defendant C; and (d) KRW 150 million to Nonparty I; and (e) KRW 75 million to G, the maximum debt amount of KRW 75 million to each of the maximum debt amounts of KRW 75 million.

(B) The aforementioned establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was combined with each other on the date of its receipt, and the “mortgage” and the “mortgage” on July 13, 2005.

On June 10, 2005, among the instant officetels, 52 rooms except J or K (hereinafter “three rooms”) among the above 57 rooms were cancelled on the ground of termination on December 4, 2006, No. 113244, Nov. 23, 2006, which was received on December 11, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as the “registration of cancellation of this case”).

On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff received a judgment against Defendant C and H on June 10, 2005 against the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security as of June 10, 2005 against Defendant C and H, G, and the right to collateral security as of June 10, 2005, and the right to collateral security as of July 13, 2005, and the right to collateral security as of July 13, 2005.

The Incheon District Court 2012Gahap9801, Seoul High Court 2014Na35374, hereinafter referred to as the "Prior Trial Litigation").

D. Defendant B is the husband of I. Defendant B.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is all of 57 family rooms where the defendants conspired to register the cancellation of this case and omitted the application for cancellation registration intentionally with respect to three family rooms.