1. The Defendant shall pay 8,393,492 won from C and 30% per annum from December 7, 2012 to the date of full payment.

1. As to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the Changwon District Court, Kim Maritime Registry, which was received on August 5, 201, the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”) was completed with respect to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, with the Defendant, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 25,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 6

2. Determination as to the allegation of cancellation on the ground of invalidation of the ground

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the creditor against C who is the plaintiff's wife.

C and the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the instant real estate on the instant real estate by forging a mortgage-backed contract under the name of the Plaintiff in the future.

Therefore, since the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case is invalid, it should be cancelled.

B. According to the judgment, C was present at the fourth date for pleading of the instant case as the Plaintiff’s legal representative and stated that he completed the establishment registration of the instant real estate on the instant real estate by forging a written mortgage establishment agreement under the Plaintiff’s name. However, it is insufficient to recognize C and the Defendant’s aforementioned statement alone as the completion of the establishment registration of the instant real estate on the instant real estate by forging a written mortgage establishment agreement under the Plaintiff’s name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination as to the allegation of cancellation on the ground of repayment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (A) even if the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage was not invalid, the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage was intended to secure the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant was fully repaid as follows, and the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage did not exist, and thus, should be revoked.

(B) C) On August 5, 2011, the Defendant agreed to obtain a loan of KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant, but, in fact, deducted KRW 1,305,00 as interest, and actually deducted KRW 18,695.