1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the instant lawsuits shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 2010, the registration of the establishment of the collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) indicated in the [Attachment 26506] set forth in the [Attachment 2] List of Collateral Security (hereinafter “mortgage”) that the debtor filed for the Defendant was completed on May 20, 2010 with respect to the Gu-U.S. C Forest 945§³ (hereinafter “the forest of this case”). As for the error in filing an application on May 20, 2010, the registration of correcting the debtor from the Defendant to D was completed.

B. On May 4, 2010 without D’s consent, the Defendant was prosecuted for committing an offense, such as entering into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”) of KRW 113 million on the loan principal (hereinafter “the instant loan transaction agreement”) with the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Hun-Ga1729 Decided January 15, 2014, which was sentenced to a two-year sentence of imprisonment in the case of the loan transaction agreement (Evidence No. 3), the forgery of private documents, and the display of the said investigation document, but the Defendant appealed on May 14, 2014, but the appellate court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014No409) dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on May 1, 2014.

C. D filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation with the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-ro 2013Gahap1436, and the said court rendered a judgment on July 18, 2014 that “D’s obligation under the instant loan transaction agreement against the Plaintiff does not exist.”

On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Court (Seoul High Court 2014Na3239) dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, a person in charge of the Plaintiff’s loan, concluded the instant loan transaction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the security of the instant forest, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation indicated in the [Attachment 1] List of Loans secured by the instant mortgage (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”).