1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 59,50,000,000 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 2 to 6.

On August 18, 2004, the Plaintiff prepared for restaurant business was paid KRW 17.5 million to the restaurant business funds by the Defendant who was engaged in the building business.

B. On August 19, 2004, the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s wife, as a mortgagee, completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the E field, 98 square meters, such as 471 square meters in Yangju-si, the Plaintiff owned, as the Plaintiff’s wife, with the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 22.5 million.

After that, on November 5, 2004, the creditor of the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage was changed to the defendant, and on December 8, 2004, the registration of the establishment of the establishment was cancelled.

C. Meanwhile, on January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed 55 million won from the Defendant on January 25, 2007 by “the Plaintiff” to the Defendant on January 25, 2007, and the same year.

3. up to 31. 1 million won, and the same year.

5. up to 31. 31. 45 million won shall be repaid, and any damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum, and any compulsory execution shall be admitted and accepted.

“Preparation and delivery of this case’s Notarial Deed, as well as preparation and delivery of the Notarial Deed, has been made and issued as shown in the Schedule of Documents. D.

On December 5, 2016, based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received a decision to commence a compulsory auction on real estate for the same 484m2 in Yangju-si, which is owned by the Plaintiff, as well as for the same 471m2 in Yangju-si, D, E, 98m2 in the same E, and 40m2 in the same G field.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion that around August 2004, the plaintiff established an internal relationship with the defendant who was a spouse and received KRW 17.5 million as a consideration. The plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case at the defendant's request without the intention of repayment, and the defendant also knew this fact, and therefore the notarial deed of this case is null and void as a false conspiracy, so compulsory execution based on it should be rejected. 2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant's assertion that the defendant is the defendant, August 1, 2004, to the plaintiff.