1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On March 12, 2007, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to C large 220 square meters in Ansan-si.

B. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to lend a loan to the said land due to insufficient funds for the construction of the building. The Defendant provided that the Defendant would grant a loan to the Defendant by setting up a right to collateral security (the maximum debt amount of 400,000,000) on the said land.

As to the above land on March 28, 2007, the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant created the right to collateral security, which is the maximum debt amount of 400,000,000, which is the mortgagee.

C. However, unlike the promise, the Defendant did not lend the right to collateral security at the same rate of KRW 400,000 out of the total amount of KRW 400,000, and on July 3, 2007, transferred the right to collateral security to D.

D applied for an auction of the above land based on the right to collateral security, and as a result of the auction, the Plaintiff lost its ownership.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D to confirm the existence of ownership of the above land, and the appellate court confirmed that D paid KRW 152,00,000 to the plaintiff and recovered the above money.

E. Since the Defendant’s transfer of the above right to collateral security to D unjust enrichment of KRW 400,000,000, the Defendant should pay KRW 400,000 to the Plaintiff.

However, since the Plaintiff recovered KRW 152,00,000 from D, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 248,000 to the Defendant.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant lent KRW 400,000,000 to the defendant and set up the right to collateral security. However, even if the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 7 are integrated, it is not sufficient to acknowledge them, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

Rather, in full view of the statement No. 1 and the witness E’s testimony, the possibility that the Defendant created the above collateral security right to secure the return of money invested in the Plaintiff (or F via the Plaintiff) cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, it is therefore.