1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 18, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against Nonparty C, etc. with the Daejeon District Court 2010Kadan57937, and filed a lawsuit against the said court, and confirmed that “C, etc. jointly and severally with the Plaintiff and KRW 75,371,026 and KRW 20,551,462 among them were paid with the Plaintiff, and KRW 17% per annum from July 13, 1995 until January 31, 1998 from June 29, 195 to January 31, 1998; KRW 25% per annum from the following day to August 31, 1998; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to December 31, 1998; and KRW 18% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around the time when each of them was paid.”

B. On August 20, 1997, C completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000 on the real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on August 14, 1997.

C. On October 26, 2005, Nonparty D applied for a compulsory auction of real estate to Seoul Western District Court E, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction from the above court on January 16, 2006. On January 16, 2006, the Defendant submitted a claim statement of the principal amount of KRW 20 million, interest of KRW 40,000,000 (=20,000,000 x 2.5% per month x 80 months) to the above court.

On July 10, 2006, the auction court revoked the above decision to commence the auction and rendered a decision to dismiss D's request for auction.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of false conspiracy, the Plaintiff first asserted that the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage is null and void by means of a false conspiracy between C and the Defendant, and thus, the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage should be cancelled. In light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission alone is by means of a false conspiracy between C and the Defendant.