1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant with the Internet gambling fund, and the Defendant was well aware of the name of the loan.

As a security for the above loan, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate owned by the Plaintiff in the future.

However, since the above loan, which is the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, is null and void as illegal consideration, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the instant collateral security to the Plaintiff.

2. The presumption power of the real estate registration is against "the title holder is a legitimate right holder, the cause is legitimate, and the registration procedure is lawful," so the claimant must prove that there is no ground for registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case or that it is null and void.

It is difficult to conclude that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was aware that the Defendant was to use the loan as gambling funds at the time of lending money to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the defendant loaned a total of KRW 178,010,450 to the plaintiff several times, the plaintiff paid a total of KRW 80,001,00 to the defendant from July 25, 2016 to October 10 of the same year, and the plaintiff prepared and delivered a loan certificate stating "10,000 won for rent, interest rate of May 30, 2017" on November 10, 2016, and the purport of the whole evidence of this case is as follows.