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

A. As to the attached real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 182 million with the Daejeon District Court No. 17922, Sept. 8, 201, which was received on September 8, 2011, with the debtor as the Plaintiff and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

B. On January 15, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction based on the instant right to collateral security, and received a voluntary decision to commence auction as Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch D.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3-3's entry, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, Nonparty E, misrepresenting the Plaintiff’s agent without the Plaintiff’s permission, concluding a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, and the Defendant obtained the registration of establishment of a mortgage of the instant case from an unentitled person E, thereby null and void.

Even if the above contract and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage are valid, the defendant concluded the mortgage contract of this case by soliciting or aiding the act of deceitation of E.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

B. In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the registration is deemed lawful and is presumed to publicly announce the true state of rights, and thus, there is a burden to prove the opposing fact that the presumption of establishment is reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 201). In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is not directly established by the owner, but is involved in the establishment act by a third party, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is presumed lawful even if the mortgagee claims that the third party is the representative of the owner, so the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is deemed to have been completed legally. Therefore, the owner who claims the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void, namely, the opposing fact.