1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Around September 2009, the plaintiff lent KRW 72 million to the non-party D, "The plaintiff shall lend KRW 72 million to the non-party D on March 24, 2009, KRW 30 million on September 4, 2009, KRW 72 million on a total, KRW 72 million on September 4, 2009," and the ground 1-D.

Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A person who was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months (which is currently in progress in the appellate court as Suwon District Court 2014No5151)” of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to have been sentenced to imprisonment for eight months. There was an appeal by Suwon District Court 2014No5151, but the said appellate court was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment by the said court, and the said appellate court judgment became final and conclusive as it is,” and the first instance judgment was written as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the second instance judgment as stipulated in paragraph (2), the Defendants’ new arguments made in the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to new arguments made by the Defendants in the trial

A. The Defendants’ assertion D, without Defendant B’s consent, concluded a mortgage agreement on the instant real estate with the Plaintiff and completed the establishment registration of the instant mortgage.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void without any cause.

Thus, since the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case is valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship, the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with.

B. Determination 1) Where a registration is cancelled without any cause because the requirements for the validity of a real right are the requirements for the existence of a real right and the registration is not required to continue to exist, the validity of the real right is not affected, and the registered titleholder who cancelled the registration is presumed to be a legitimate right holder even before the completion of the registration for recovery is presumed to be a registered titleholder, and accordingly, the grounds for invalidation should be asserted and proved in the same way that the registration is cancelled without any cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39