1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Busan District Court for a payment order with the Busan District Court Branch Branch No. 2017 tea 8185, and on April 13, 2017, the said court issued a payment order with the effect that “A shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 673,901,343 and the amount of KRW 672,607,52 from March 30, 2017,” and the said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On December 7, 2016, Defendant A completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage”) with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) listed in the separate sheet No. 2 and paragraph (3) and each of the goods listed in the separate sheet No. 2016-173 of the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Mortgage Act (hereinafter “instant movable property”) on December 6, 2016, as of December 7, 2016 (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”) on the ground of the contract signed on December 6, 2016, the Changwon District Court (hereinafter “the instant mortgage contract”). The maximum debt amount is KRW 132,00,000,000 as of December 7, 2016 (hereinafter “the creation of a mortgage”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “A” made it difficult to repay the principal and interest of the Plaintiff due to the aggravation of financial standing, which led to the Defendant’s establishment registration of the instant neighboring land, building, and movable property, which are one of his sole property. This constitutes a conspiracy, false indication, or fraudulent act to be exempted from compulsory execution by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff revoked the instant secured mortgage contract against the Defendant as a fraudulent act and sought cancellation of the said establishment registration.

B. We examine the determination of the allegation of false conspiracy 1, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, in collusion with A and the Defendant, constitute a false representation.