채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not borrow money from the Defendant, and there was no fact that the written contract to establish a mortgage (the attached document No. 2; hereinafter “the written contract to establish a mortgage of this case”) for the establishment of a mortgage of this case was prepared by the Plaintiff, and it was forged.
Therefore, there is no secured obligation of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of the instant case.
2. Determination
A. Where a registration of creation of a mortgage was made prior to the assertion that the mortgage contract in this case was forged, the registration is legally made, and it is presumed that the state of true right is publicly announced, and thus, the other party who asserts that the registration was made unlawful is responsible to prove the opposing fact that the presumption of establishment of a mortgage in this case is reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 201). In the event that the registration of creation of a mortgage in this case is not directly established by the owner, but is involved in the establishment of a mortgage in the third party’s act, the establishment of a mortgage is presumed lawful even if the mortgagee, etc. claims that the third party is the representative of the owner, and thus, the owner of the right to request the cancellation of the registration was not authorized to represent the third party
The third party shall bear the burden of proving the invalidity of the documents, such as the forgery of the documents necessary for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da56072 delivered on February 26, 199, etc.). The Plaintiff asserts that the signature of the mortgage contract of this case is not the Plaintiff’s writing, but the signature of the document is not the Plaintiff’s letter, and that the stamp image after the signature is consistent with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint.
In addition to the whole purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 5, the office manager G of the F Judicial scrivener Office's office of this case stated the name of the plaintiff and the defendant in the mortgage contract of this case and affixed the plaintiff's seal impression.