1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2007, 160289, the Suwon District Court, the Sungwon District Court (hereinafter “each forest of this case”) registered the establishment of a mortgage for each forest as listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case”) with respect to each forest as listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the forest of this case”).

B. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff completed each registration of the transfer of ownership based on the trust (No. 167274) with respect to each forest of this case.

C. Defendant C requested the seizure and collection order regarding the secured debt of the instant mortgage establishment registration against Defendant B (U.S. District Court 2017TT 100209), and the above court judicial assistant officer accepted it on February 7, 2017, and issued the seizure and collection order.

Accordingly, on April 20, 2017, the registration of the seizure of each forest of this case (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “registration of seizure of this case”) was completed in the same registry office No. 75431.

【Ground of recognition】 A without dispute, entry of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 250 million to D. However, in light of the circumstances, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security was the Defendant B, and the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security was completed.

Therefore, among the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case, Defendant B should be cancelled by the registration of invalidity of cause for which the secured claim does not exist.

In addition, since the registration of the seizure of this case by Defendant C is also null and void as to the claims of Defendant B without existence, Defendant C is obligated to express its consent as an interested party regarding the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case.

3. Determination

A. In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage has been completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have disclosed the real state of rights, so it can be reversed by the other party who asserts that the registration was unlawful.