1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. On November 8, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she leased KRW 320 million to B, and on the same day, the Plaintiff cancelled the first priority right of collateral security in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day. The Plaintiff established the right of collateral security in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

On the other hand, the Defendant established the right to collateral on the two parcels of the above four parcels, which is lower than the YA, but at the time of the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the right to collateral, the Plaintiff had already been cancelled at the time of the cancellation of the right to collateral, and thus, the Plaintiff was cancelled without being transferred the right to collateral for life-sustaining. On April 23, 2015, the right to collateral cancelled by the judgment of the Daegu District Court was restored, and became a senior mortgagee than the Plaintiff. In the auction procedure on the said two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), the Defendant was distributed KRW 350,000,000,000 as the maximum debt amount, as the senior mortgagee, as the maximum debt amount.

However, as a person who actually aided and aided a crime that illegally cancelled the right to collateral security, the Defendant made unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount stated in the claim in the auction procedure of this case as the Plaintiff was the first right to collateral security, and accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the amount stated in the claim. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff in accordance with the principle of equity.

B. On the other hand, in order to establish the obligation to return unjust enrichment first, there should be no legal grounds for the Defendant’s occurrence of the benefits acquired by the Defendant. It is insufficient to recognize that, even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff were to be integrated, the benefits acquired by the Defendant would have no legal grounds.

Plaintiff

Even according to the assertion itself, the defendant was released from the right to collateral security in accordance with the tort of E, and the person whose right to collateral security has been restored by the judgment and whose right to collateral security has been restored.