1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the part concerning the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance other than the dismissal of the third to fourth to the fourth to fourth to the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that set forth in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore, (b) the same shall apply in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In light of the following facts: (a) the part of the establishment of a mortgage in this case was dried; (b) Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 7 through 11 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) witness D of the first instance trial, the establishment of the mortgage in this case was acknowledged as the existence of the secured debt as alleged by the defendant, while the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in this case was not sufficient to recognize that the establishment of a mortgage in this case was made based on a false conspiracy between Eul and the defendant; and (c) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise; and (d) the above assertion by the plaintiff is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.