The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 26, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a loan transaction agreement with D Association (hereinafter “D”) and borrowed KRW 715 billion from D.

(hereinafter “instant loans”). (b)

On September 26, 2011, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment G (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by E in order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation for the instant loan to D, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was completed with respect to the debtor, the mortgagee D, the maximum debt amount of KRW 858 million with respect to the debtor, the mortgagee D, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 850 million.

C. Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 5, 2013 with respect to the instant real estate on the grounds of sale and purchase on December 8, 2012.

Around March 28, 2018, the debt of the instant loan was fully repaid with principal and interest, and the registration of cancellation was completed on March 29, 2018 on the ground that the instant mortgage was terminated.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) On September 201, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendants purchased the instant real estate from E in such money by receiving a loan from the bank, and the Plaintiff concluded a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendants to divide the market price profits accrued from the sale of the instant real estate into half each (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

AB concluded the agreement.

The Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 715 million from D on September 26, 2011 under the instant business agreement and paid the purchase price of the instant real estate. The Defendants refused to divide profits accrued from market price gains after completing the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C’s name on February 5, 2013.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is a service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, which was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants.