근저당권설정등기말소회복
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers):
As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the creditor, Defendant B, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 70 million, as the Government Registry of the District Court No. 79165, Sept. 5, 2014.
B. On October 15, 2014 without the Plaintiff’s consent, E applied for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case to the Government Office of Government District Court by means of the Plaintiff’s power of delegation, etc., and accordingly, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case was cancelled as of October 15, 2014 by the above registry office as of October 15, 2014.
C. Defendant C and D purchased the instant real estate from Defendant B on October 1, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant real estate shares one-half shares among the instant real estate under receipt No. 93198, Oct. 20, 2014.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the plaintiff as to the real estate of this case is a registration of invalidation of the cause completed by a forged document. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff, the defendant Eul is liable to perform the procedure for recovery registration, and the defendant C and D are interested parties, and they must express their consent to the recovery registration.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case itself was null and void without Defendant B’s consent, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the right to seek the registration of recovery. As to this, the Plaintiff directly to the Plaintiff for the purpose of securing the loan obligation of Defendant B to himself and Nonparty E.