1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff revoked the mortgage-backed contract concluded on September 18, 2012 between the Defendant and B; and (b) sought the implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation.

① On June 14, 2011, B guaranteed C’s credit guarantee loans (33 million won) to the Plaintiff.

② On November 29, 2013, pursuant to a credit guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff subrogated for C’s loans of KRW 29,823,508.

③ However, B entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on September 18, 2012 regarding each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estates”). As to the real estates listed in the separate sheet No. 86509, Sept. 20, 2012, B concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on September 18, 2012 (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”). As to the real estates listed in the separate sheet No. 86509, Gwangju District Court’s Mayangyangyang Branch Office (hereinafter “the establishment registration of each of the instant real estates”), the establishment registration of neighboring real estates No. 33457, Sept. 26, 2012 (hereinafter “the establishment registration of each of the instant real estates”).

④ Even if the Defendant did not have a debt relationship, B entered into the mortgage contract of this case, which is invalid by false representation of agreement.

Nevertheless, since B did not seek to cancel the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant real estate, which is the only property in excess of the debt, the Plaintiff seeks to cancel the registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the instant real estate in subrogation of B as the right of indemnity.

⑤ In addition, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B constitutes a preserved claim for obligee’s right of revocation, and the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract regarding the instant real estate, which is the only property B, constitutes a fraudulent act, seeking its revocation.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether there was false conspiracy, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the mortgage contract of this case constitutes false conspiracy and thus becomes null and void.