1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to C forest land 2,983 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si. On May 15, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring forest land 2,20,000,000 won for Nonparty D and E (per 1/2 shares, respectively) and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage against the debtor.

(hereinafter the above right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) B.

With respect to the instant real estate on July 3, 2008, the Defendant had completed the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty F (G before the name of the Plaintiff) on the grounds of the trust on July 3, 2008, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on March 27, 2013.

C. On September 28, 2017, the auction procedure for the real estate of this case was commenced with the court H, and on September 28, 2017, the remaining KRW 83,645,157, excluding KRW 2,582,618, out of the dividend amount of KRW 86,227,775, which was distributed to D and E, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The third party who acquired the ownership of the mortgaged property from the owner of the mortgaged property in order to secure another person's obligation for judgment on the plaintiff's assertion is in a position similar to the mortgaged property in that if the mortgage is exercised by the creditor, the third party who acquired the ownership of the mortgaged property shall lose the ownership of the mortgaged property. Therefore, if the third party who acquired the mortgaged property which is the object of the secured property shall repay the debt or lose the ownership of the mortgaged property through the execution of the mortgage, the provisions of Articles 370 and 341 of the Civil Act on the right to indemnity of the secured property shall apply mutatis mutandis to the right to indemnity against the debtor pursuant to the provisions on the guaranteed obligation (Supreme Court Decision 97Da8403 delivered on July 25, 1997). The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the indemnity amount of KRW 86,227,775 pursuant to Articles

However, the defendant is the plaintiff in this case.