All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to each of the selective claims causes by the Plaintiff in this case

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, first of all, the contract to establish a right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) which is the cause of the instant registration is null and void as the so-called “a false declaration of intent (Article 108(1) of the Civil Act)” or that there is no obligation to collateral security, and thus, the registration of the instant case shall be null and void.

However, if the purport of the entire argument is added to each part of the statements in Gap 2, Eul 1-1, Eul 1-2, 2, 3-1, 3-2, 4, 5, and 6-2, the defendant provided real estate owned by the defendant as security and borrowed 75 million won from C Co., Ltd. around January 29, 2018, and then immediately paid to Eul the remainder remaining after deducting expenses from the loan amount, it can be acknowledged that the contract of this case was concluded in order to secure the defendant's claim for return of the principal and interest of the loan to Eul and completed the registration of this case. Since there is no evidence to deem that the contract of this case constitutes the so-called "any false declaration of intention (Article 108 (1) of the Civil Act)", the plaintiff's payment based on the different premise cannot be accepted.

[On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the contract date of this case is not "(the date recorded in the register) January 14, 2018," but " around January 14, 2019." However, there is no evidence to recognize this point, and such assertion cannot be accepted).

Next, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant contract constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, a general creditor, and sought the cancellation of the instant contract and the cancellation of the registration of the instant case due to its restitution.

However, the only part of Gap 6’s statement is that the defendant actually borrowed money from a financial institution and actually borrowed money from the financial institution around January 2018.