근저당권설정등기말소 등
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.
1. The relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same.
(2) On February 2, 200, the judgment of the court below as to the cause of the claim was made by forging a document to establish a mortgage under the name of the plaintiff and thus concluding the instant security agreement. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage, and the registration of the establishment of a superficies (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of the establishment of a mortgage, etc.") with respect to the instant real estate under the name of the defendant was completed
Therefore, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to implement each procedure for cancellation registration of the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case, which is the registration invalidation of cause.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to B and granted the power of attorney to conclude the instant collateral agreement. Thus, the instant collateral agreement is based on the Plaintiff’s genuine intent. 2) Even if the instant collateral agreement was concluded against the Plaintiff’s will, the Plaintiff is liable for the instant collateral agreement in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil
B. As seen earlier, as to the assertion that the instant collateral agreement was based on the Plaintiff’s genuine intent, in light of the circumstances where the judgment became final and conclusive after having sentenced the Plaintiff to a conviction on the criminal facts such as “the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression was issued to the Plaintiff in order to build a forest road in the instant real estate,” the Defendant’s circumstance or evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff granted the Plaintiff the authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff in the instant collateral agreement. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.