The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties 1) The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff and E’s husband and wife, and on April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were legally married on or around May 2, 2012; (b) the Defendant and E are between the Defendant and the head of the Plaintiff; (c) the Defendant and E are the Defendant and the head of the Plaintiff; (d) Meanwhile, E were operating an enterprise in the past’s name while operating the enterprise; and (e) from February 2, 2007, E operated the business of manufacturing electronic equipment with K with the trade name of K (hereinafter “instant business entity”); and (e) C was in the instant business entity to assist E, such as performing accounting work.

B. On July 2, 2012, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was completed with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) as the Plaintiff-owner of the instant right to collateral security on July 4, 2012, by the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court No. 200 million won of the maximum debt amount, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee C of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”).

C. On October 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C on the ground that the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage was completed in accordance with the false establishment of the mortgage agreement (Seoul Central District Court 2017Gadan87242). (2) On November 7, 2017, the Defendant had been assigned the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security on the ground that the instant lawsuit was pending, and completed the additional registration of the transfer of the instant right to collateral security on November 9, 2017, with the Defendant as the mortgagee.

3) Accordingly, on March 27, 2018, the above court rendered a judgment of retirement to C on the ground that it is not qualified as the defendant, and the judgment became final and conclusive. [Grounds for recognition] The facts of absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, and 16 (including paper numbers, and evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 33, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant is as follows.