2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Upon the request of the Plaintiff, B and C, the Plaintiff permitted the third party to set up a collateral of 300 million won with respect to the instant real estate as the creditor, and granted to B the certificate of seal impression, one copy of a certificate of seal impression, and a certificate of registration necessary for setting up the collateral.

On February 6, 2014, B and C prepared through a certified judicial scrivener D through the documents written in the foregoing paragraph (a) that were delivered by the Plaintiff, ① the Defendant and the Plaintiff who created the right to collateral security, and the Defendant who established the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”). Based on this, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of collateral security (hereinafter “registration of establishment of collateral security”) with the amount of KRW 780,000,000, which was received on February 6, 2014 from the Seoul Western District Court’s Seodaemun-gu Office (Seoul District Court Decision 3427, which was received on February 6, 2014).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion by the party concerned, the plaintiff asserted that since the document establishing the mortgage of this case was forged, or D, which dealt with the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case, violated the duty of identification under Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case should be cancelled as registration of invalidity. Thus, the defendant asserts that the contract establishing the mortgage of this case and the act of creation of the mortgage of this case constitutes the act of expression or representation beyond the authority

Judgment

First, we examine the argument that the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case is null and void, since the mortgage contract of this case was forged.

As alleged by the Plaintiff, B and C concluded the instant mortgage contract beyond the scope delegated by the Plaintiff is based on the facts earlier.