근저당권설정등기말소 이행 등
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 6230, Feb. 11, 2010, on the ground of sale by voluntary auction as of February 10, 2010 with respect to shares of 7/10 of the instant real estate.
B. On March 10, 201, Defendant B completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 1,00,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 7/10 among the instant immovable property Nos. 1 and 2, and the debtor as the Plaintiff. On November 21, 2012, the Defendants completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 7/10 among the instant immovable property No. 3, the maximum debt amount of KRW 80,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 7/10, and the debtor as the Plaintiff.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) entrusted D with the auction procedure of the instant real estate Nos. 1 through 3 by proxy; (b) however, D continued to keep the registration certificates, etc. of the instant real estate Nos. 1 through 3; and (c) on the ground that “it is necessary to conclude the lease contract of the E Hospital funeral hall; and (d) the Plaintiff did not delegate the authority to establish a collateral security right to the instant real estate Nos. 1 through
However, D used the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and the above registration certificate to use the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and completed the registration of the establishment of each of the following subparagraphs to the Defendants. Therefore, the registration of the establishment of each of the following subparagraphs is invalid, and the Defendants are obliged to implement the registration procedure of cancellation of each of the following establishment of a new mortgage.
B. In the event that one ownership transfer registration has been completed, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. Therefore, in order to deny this by the plaintiff and to seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration by claiming the invalidity of grounds for registration, the plaintiff asserts and prove the fact that the grounds for invalidation are the grounds for invalidation.