1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C’s debt to the Plaintiff is against C by the Daegu District Court Branch Branching 2012Gadan9117, August 27, 2010, and the same year

9.3. Around May 28, 2013, a loan lawsuit seeking the payment of KRW 40,000,000 was filed and the above court rendered a judgment that "C shall pay to the Plaintiff 40,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won among them, calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from June 8, 2012 to the date of full payment from January 8, 2013 to the date of full payment." Since C did not appeal, the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 25, 2013.

B. C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on January 9, 2012 regarding each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) as one’s sole property, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000, with respect to each of the instant real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estates”). On the same day, C completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring real estates”) to the Defendant under the Daegu District Court No. 5270, receipt of the support for distribution of

C. At the time of establishing the instant mortgage contract against the debtor, C did not have any specific property other than the instant real estate equivalent to KRW 109,000,000 at the market price. However, in addition to the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Plaintiff, the Defendant was also liable for the amount exceeding the amount of KRW 60,000,000 to the community credit cooperatives.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, fact-finding inquiry to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant’s external third village, C is a relative relationship with each other, and in light of the monetary transaction relationship, C established the establishment of the mortgage registration of the instant case in collusion with the Defendant in order to avoid creditors’ compulsory execution, and the cause thereof should be cancelled. 2) The Defendant asserts that the establishment of the mortgage registration of the instant case should be cancelled.