A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant married on April 21, 197, but married on April 28, 2008.

After consultation, the Plaintiff lived with C, who is his/her father, on the first floor among the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant housing”), and the Defendant leased a new residence and lived separately with the Plaintiff, etc.

B. As to the instant housing owned by the Plaintiff, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) was completed on December 28, 2006, based on the ground of the contract to establish a contract dated December 19, 2006, which was received on December 28, 2006 by the court below, with the obligor, the obligee, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case against the Defendant by forging the written contract establishing the instant mortgage of this case, following the Plaintiff’s death, but lost the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da122885, Apr. 27, 2017). The appellate court also dismissed the appeal and became final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Na23426, Feb. 14, 2018).

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Category B 1 and Category 2

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case against the res judicata of the previous final and conclusive judgment or there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful contrary to the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit.

On the other hand, since the existence of a claim for cancellation of registration based on the relationship between the existence of a claim and the claim is separate subject matter, the case of a claim for confirmation as to the existence of a claim or an obligation and the case of a claim for cancellation registration shall be deemed to have a relationship

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da1020, Sept. 9, 1980). As to the fact that the Plaintiff does not have the right to claim for cancellation of the right to collateral security in the previous lawsuit.