1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 13, 2006, the Defendant purchased the pertinent land at KRW 60,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) from D for KRW 348 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 6,00,000 to D on the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract, and paid KRW 40,000 in the intermediate payment of KRW 40,000 on September 18, 206, and paid KRW 13,000,000 out of the remainder on October 13, 206.

B. On September 19, 2007, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage security”) on the land of this case as of September 19, 2007, as of the Daejeon District Court, Jin-si Branch of the competent District Court, Law No. 37097, Sept. 19, 2007, for establishing a contract dated September 5, 2007, with the maximum amount of debt, KRW 80,00,000, the debtor D, the debtor, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security.

C. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the transfer of the instant collateral security right (hereinafter “instant transfer agreement”) with the Defendant that the Plaintiff acquired the instant collateral security right from the Defendant and was transferred the instant collateral security right.

On the same day, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 73,00,000 to the F’s deposit account, E, and E transferred KRW 68,000,000, which is the remainder after deducting KRW 5,000,000 from the said KRW 73,000 on the same day, to the Defendant’s deposit account.

On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security in the instant case, which was based on the transfer of the final claim as of June 26, 2012, from Daejeon District Court, Jin-si Registry (Seoul District Court) No. 28788, Jun. 26, 2012, as to the instant land.

E. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D for the claim for acquisition amount (hereinafter “instant related lawsuit”) with the District Court 2013Kadan52028, but was ruled against D on the ground that the secured claim of the instant mortgage was nonexistent, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 are included, below.