근저당권말소
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
1. The grounds for this part of the facts are as follows: (a) the court, on the ground that the second page 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance was used as “the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage based on a contract to establish a mortgage on June 21, 1990”; and (b) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (c) this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. At around 1990, the Defendant requested D to provide a security in preparation against the sale price received by D from the buyer in the future while entrusting D with the business of selling containers and containers at the E-tourist hotel.
D, upon request of the father of the plaintiff, completed the registration of creation of each of the instant mortgages to the defendant.
However, due to the circumstances of the defendant, D could not start the sales of the container with the container alteration work.
As such, the establishment registration of a mortgage of each of the instant claims is null and void because there is no legal act that establishes the secured claims, or there is no secured claim.
B. The Defendant agreed to D to cancel the registration of establishment of each of the roots of the instant case.
C. Even if the secured debt of each of the instant mortgages was established, the extinctive prescription was completed.
3. Determination
A. In the event that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have publicly announced the real state of rights, and thus, the party asserting that the registration was unlawful is responsible for the proof of objection to reverse the presumption power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 201). However, such presumption power was duly made by the mortgagee of the right to collateral security upon the conclusion of the contract establishing the right to collateral security, which serves as the ground for the registration, and the right to collateral security was duly acquired by the mortgagee of the right to collateral security or duly