1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased a parcel of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant parcel of land”) in the amount of 285,000,000 won in total from the purchase price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 2009, from the Defendant on December 21, 2009.

B. On September 9, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate stating that the Defendant borrowed money under the following conditions (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”) and issued it to the Defendant.

1) Amount: The due date of borrowing KRW 78,00,000 on September 3, 201: the due date of repayment: the applicable interest rate on November 30, 201 (on November 30, 201, the total amount of interest paid): 9% per annum: the overdue interest rate of KRW 93,60,000 per annum from the due date of repayment to secure the payment of borrowed principal; 9% per annum from the due date of repayment to the due date of borrowing KRW 120,000 per annum.

C. On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on the part of the Defendant with the maximum debt amount of KRW 93,600,000, the debtor and the mortgagee as the joint collateral, and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was revoked on July 30, 2012, and subsequently completed again on August 24, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). [Grounds for recognition] Gap’s evidence 2, 5, Eul’s evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the instant land purchased from the Defendant, etc. will undertake a development project later, the Plaintiff merely set up the instant mortgage on the instant land and its ground under the promise to grant the Defendant the authority to construct new housing, and on the instant land and its ground building. The Plaintiff did not actually borrow money from the Defendant, such as the loan certificate of this case. Therefore, the instant mortgage should be cancelled as the absence of the secured obligation.

B. If the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the court shall do so.