1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 10, 2009, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage of this case”) consisting of the debtor, the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount, 70 million won, on the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On August 20, 2009, the Defendant forged a power of attorney on the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the instant neighboring mortgage in the Plaintiff’s name, and cancelled the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage under Article 17014 of the Seocho-gu District Court’s receipt of the Jinwon Sea Registry on August 24, 2009 by using the power of attorney on the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage.

C. The Defendant’s foregoing June 8, 2012

Punishment for 10 months was imposed on the Changwon District Court on the charges of forging private documents, uttering of a falsified private document, false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed, uttering of forged public documents, etc. and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months.

( Changwon District Court 201No. 4147). The defendant appealed, but at the appellate court, the appellate court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months.

[Chowon District Court 2012No1140, 1777 (Consolidation)] The above judgment was finalized on March 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case is unlawful by forged documents and thus the cause is null and void. Thus, at the time of the above cancellation, the defendant, who is the title holder of the real estate of this case, is liable to implement the procedure for recovery registration of

The defendant asserted that the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant root was cancelled after telephoneing the plaintiff at the certified judicial scrivener office with the plaintiff's approval. However, the defendant is in accordance with the above evidence.