1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) with respect to C, a notary public has 2,220,000,000 won based on the No. 16 of the Monetary Loan Agreement No. 209 (hereinafter “instant No. notarial deed”) and interest claim against C.

However, C concluded each mortgage contract and mortgage contract as stated in paragraph (1) with the defendant in excess of the obligation with a view to evading the obligation under the No. 1 of this case. Each of the above contracts is not only a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff who is the creditor, but also a bad faith of the defendant who is the beneficiary.

Therefore, the plaintiff revoked each of the above contracts as a fraudulent act, and claims the defendant to cancel the registration of each mortgage creation and cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as stated in Paragraph 2 of the purport of the claim.

2. There is no evidence to prove the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

(3) The court below ruled in favor of C on April 12, 2019 that “the instant Notarial Deed was made by commission of an unauthorized representative, and thus its validity cannot be recognized.” Rather, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each description in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the court below rendered a favorable judgment against C on April 12, 2019, on the ground that “The instant No. notarial Deed was made by commission of an unauthorized representative, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there was a claim under the instant No. notarial Deed against C against the Plaintiff, a preserved claim against the obligee under the obligee’s right of revocation.”

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.