1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 4, 1995, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to inheritance by consultation and division on April 5, 1995 with respect to each real estate of this case.

B. On December 6, 2012, each of the instant lands was completed the registration of establishment of each of the instant neighboring premises by the debtor, the debtor, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) decided to borrow KRW 200 million from the Defendant and set up a collateral on each of the instant lands to the Defendant as a security. However, since the Defendant did not lend KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, the establishment registration of a collateral on each of the instant lands is null and void as the secured claim does not exist. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of a collateral on each of the instant lands. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff set up and established a collateral on each of the instant lands to the Defendant is to guarantee the Defendant’s obligation to borrow KRW 220 million against the Defendant of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

The defendant actually lent KRW 220 million to E, so the registration of establishment of the mortgage of each of the instant units of the instant units of the case is valid when the secured claim is real.

Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. We examine whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of establishment of the instant right to collateral security.

The following circumstances are revealed in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1-5 (including each number), and Eul evidence Nos. 1-5 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings as to witness F’s testimony. In light of this, the plaintiff is each of the instant cases to secure the defendant’s obligation to borrow loans worth KRW 220 million against the defendant.