1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “C real estate”) and Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “D real estate”).

B. Around March 2012, the Plaintiff requested F to loan a loan broker operating the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. to lend funds as collateral for C real estate and D real estate. Around March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 250 million from the Defendant, KRW 250 million from G, KRW 2550 million from H, and KRW 250 million from H, respectively, to secure the Defendant’s loan obligation, and set the maximum debt amount of C real estate, KRW 375 million, and KRW 375 million, and KRW 300 million to secure the Defendant’s loan obligation. In order to secure the Defendant’s loan obligation, the Plaintiff each set the maximum debt amount of C real estate, KRW 375 million,00,000,000, the maximum debt amount of C real estate, and KRW 1550,000,000,000,000,00 won, and KRW 330,000,00.

C. On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 300 million to the Defendant, KRW 200 million to G, and KRW 100 million to H, respectively, and each right to collateral security established on C real estate was cancelled on the same day.

The Plaintiff borrowed additional KRW 50 million from H on June 27, 2012, and completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in the name of H on the security of D real estate.

E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap61720) claiming for the cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage against H by asserting that the secured obligation was extinguished due to repayment after making a deposit for the repayment of KRW 59,757,471 on August 13, 2013 when H applied for a voluntary auction on D’s real estate, but the said court had the obligation to H despite the deposit for repayment.

[The Supreme Court rendered a prior performance judgment on the ground that the principal is KRW 200 million ( KRW 250 million on March 13, 2012 KRW 50 million on June 27, 2012 – KRW 100 million on the repayment on May 16, 2012) and damages for delay thereon], and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Na61335) also rendered a judgment to the same effect.