1. As to the real estate stated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff, the Defendant on June 8, 2017 at the Busan District Court Seosan Branch of the Seosan Branch of the Busan District Court.

Facts of recognition

A. On December 28, 2015, the Defendant completed, on December 18, 2015, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 100 million with the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the instant case”) against the Plaintiff on December 18, 2015, the North Busan District Court Seosan Branch Office of the Busan District Court on December 18, 2015, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage”).

B. The Defendant asserted that the secured debt of the right to collateral security was fully repaid, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage in the instant case by Busan District Court 2016Kadan5934, but the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on May 30, 2017, and this judgment became final and conclusive on June 22, 2017.

C. On June 8, 2017, the Defendant forged the document for termination of the right to collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name, and completed the registration of cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of cancellation of the instant right to collateral security”) with the Busan District Court’s Seosan Branch Office No. 30358, Jun. 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. According to the above facts, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case was cancelled unlawfully.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for recovery registration of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security was consistent with the substance, since the secured obligation was fully repaid.

However, in light of the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2, the materials submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize that the secured debt of the right to collateral security has been fully repaid. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.