A. On February 27, 2014, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant real estate”) under Article 10671 of the Daegu District Court’s receipt of support for the racing of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company, the mortgagee, the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000,000.

B. However, E, who operated Defendant Company, stolen the Plaintiff’s seal, forged the power of representation, etc. regarding the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring district court under the Plaintiff’s name, and subsequently cancelled the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring district court by Daegu District Court No. 45900 on July 9, 2015.

C. After the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case was revoked, the registration of the ownership transfer under the name of Defendant C was completed as of July 30, 2015 by the Daegu District Court and the Daegu District Court and the 50963, which was received on July 30, 2015, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant real estate was completed as of July 30, 2015 by the debtor C, the person who created a collateral security interest, the livestock industry cooperative, the maximum debt amount of 1,140,000,000.

With respect to the acts described in the foregoing Paragraph (b), the Plaintiff filed a complaint against E as a crime of forging private documents or uttering of falsified documents. On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year with prison labor for the criminal facts, such as forging private documents, falsified investigation documents, false entry of public electronic records, false entry of public records, and uttering of public electronic records, etc., of Busan District Court Decision 2016Da877, Dec. 87, 2016, Dec. 2334, 2016 and Dec. 2413, 2016.

【Defendant Company based on Recognition】 Defendant Company: The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, of confession deemed as a confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of the claim against the defendant company, the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case is illegal by forged documents, and thus, the cause of the cancellation is null and void.