1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Plaintiff and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) as listed in the following table. D’s representative director B jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above loan obligations. Pursuant to each of the above loan transaction agreements, the amount of debt interest calculated on January 8, 2018 as of January 8, 2018 is KRW 997,251,280.

On November 19, 2018, the Emergency Management Safety Fund of KRW 4.05% (12% per annum) on October 20, 2016, 2016, 2.72% (12%) on October 40, 2017, 30 million (12%) on the expiration date of the loan of the borrowed loan of the borrowed loan of KRW 400,000,000 on June 30, 202 (12%) and 2.5% per annum (12%) on June 302, 202 (2) on the date of expiration of the loan of the borrowed loan of KRW 400,000,000 on June 30, 2017.

B. On May 8, 2017, B created a mortgage agreement between the Defendant and each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) with respect to each of the instant real estates (hereinafter “instant real estates”) with the maximum amount of claims KRW 1.5 billion (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”), and registered the establishment of a mortgage agreement under the name of the Defendant as the registration office of the Seoul Central District Court No. 33246, Aug. 8, 2017, which was received on August 8, 2017.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Even though Plaintiff B was in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract, it provided each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, one of the creditors, as collateral, and concluded the instant mortgage contract and completed the registration of establishment of the mortgage accordingly.

This constitutes an act of deception against the plaintiff, who is a creditor, and thus, the contract to establish a mortgage of this case should be cancelled as an act of deception, and accordingly, it is distributed to the defendant as the party who was the party whose right was lower on February 22, 2019 in the auction case of each real estate of this case as restitution.