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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties 1) Defendant C is the advice of the Plaintiff’s spouse, and Defendant C is the child of Defendant C, and Defendant C is the child of Defendant C. 2) The Plaintiff and D are under divorce proceedings as of the date of closing argument of the instant case.

(Cheongju District Court 2014ddan1946)

B. On March 7, 2013, the Defendants completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet as of March 5, 2013, the maximum debt amount of KRW 350,000,000, and the Plaintiff, the debtor.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant collateral security”). . [Ground of recognition] . (Ground of absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff did not lend money from the defendants.

The Plaintiff’s wife, who is the Plaintiff’s wife, has received the Plaintiff’s money. The Defendants remitted the money to the Defendants, who are pro-Japanese organizations, and the Defendants would have come to have lent their money to the Plaintiff when remitting the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to submit data on the details of the lending of money, and the Defendants believed that “D would provide the Defendants with a good delivery and delivery of money, if the Defendants set up a collateral,” and set up the instant collateral security against the Defendants.

However, the defendants would cancel the right to collateral security of this case if they prepared a notarial deed equivalent to KRW 150,000 to the plaintiff without any information promised to do so.

The Defendants did not cancel the instant mortgage right even though they did not cancel the said right, upon the request of the Defendants, prepared a notarial deed of KRW 150 million.

C. The Defendants, without the Plaintiff’s consent, set up the instant collateral security through a certified judicial scrivener employee.

As above, the right to collateral security in this case should be cancelled as it did not exist and completed without any cause.

3. Determination

A. The following facts are comprehensively taken into account the evidence Nos. 1, 2 through 6, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.