근저당권설정등기말소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “establishment registration of a mortgage of this case”) was completed on May 24, 2006 on the real estate indicated in the attachment list, which was owned by the plaintiff, on May 23, 2006, due to the debtor C, the mortgagee, the defendant of the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000,000.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that the registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case was void since C, which was the husband of the plaintiff, used a document related to the registration that was stolen from the plaintiff, and forged the document to establish a mortgage and completed it to the defendant.
In the event that the establishment registration of a mortgage has been completed, the registration shall be presumed to have been lawful and shall be deemed to have publicly announced the state of true rights. Therefore, the person who asserts that the registration was unlawful shall be responsible to prove the objection to the reversal of the presumption.
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da72763 delivered on April 10, 2001, etc.). However, C stolen registration-related documents only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 12-1, 2, 3, and 17-1 through 6, and testimony of witness D.
It is insufficient to recognize that the document to establish a mortgage was forged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff asserted that C or D, the actual debtor, repaid all the secured debt of the instant establishment registration, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the evidence to acknowledge the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8-2, 10-1, 2, and 16, and witness evidence Nos. 16, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.