1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.

2...

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the Defendant’s deceptive act (the husband of Defendant F’s father).

B. On November 25, 2005, the Defendant transferred the ownership of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the ground of donation from ASEAN on November 25, 2005.

C. As to the instant real estate, Suwon District Court Decision 72589, Nov. 9, 2006: (a) each of the right to collateral security (the same shall apply to the right to collateral security stated in the counterclaim; hereinafter referred to as the “right to collateral security”) created with the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000; and (b) the debtor, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion (the main claim) finds out the defendant's horse that "I would not be liable for a loan to C", and listen to F, and lent 12,00,000 won to C from July 2, 2005 to February 2, 2006.

However, C did not repay the said money to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant provided the said money and the interest thereon to the Plaintiff with the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000,000 as the maximum debt amount.

As such, the Defendant, upon entering into the instant mortgage contract with the Plaintiff, concurrently assumed the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 150,000,000 and delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (Counterclaim Claim) did not take over C’s loan obligation against the Plaintiff, and the instant right to collateral security was terminated by allowing the Plaintiff and F to enter only the name of the contract to collateral security in the name of the Defendant under the circumstances where there was no secured obligation against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the cause is null and void.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the Defendant.

3. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 and 5 of the judgment as to the main claim, and the witness F’s testimony, part of the testimony is examined.