1. Defendant B: (a) on August 20, 2015, the Seoul Northern District Court’s Northern District Court’s registration office with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 6, 2011, Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s wife, completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “registration of establishment of chonsegwon”) with the Plaintiff as the person having chonsegwon, on the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from January 17, 201 to January 16, 201, for the entire period of the building and the duration from January 17, 2011 to January 16, 2014.

B. On January 31, 201, the Plaintiff and Defendant B resided in the instant apartment building after filing a move-in report.

The Plaintiff transferred on September 5, 2012, but again filed a move-in report on the instant apartment on September 20, 2012.

C. On August 20, 2015, Defendant B forged the power of attorney in the name of the Plaintiff, and submitted an application document for cancellation of the registration of the instant chonsegwon by using that document, and made the registration of the instant chonsegwon cancelled due to cancellation on the same day.

On June 28, 2017, Defendant B issued a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 (this Court approximately KRW 2017 High Court Decision 6626), which is the crime of forging private documents, the crime of uttering of a falsified private document, the crime of false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed, and the crime of uttering of the original copy of a notarial deed, and the above summary order became final and conclusive.

On August 31, 2015, Defendant B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Bank”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 457,80,000, and the debtor as Defendant B and the mortgagee as the Defendant Bank.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case is deemed unlawful by the forgery or exercise of the defendant B.

나. 피고 B의 주장에 대하여 ⑴ 피고 B의 주장 ㈎ 이 사건 전세권은 전세금이 존재하지 않으므로 무효이다.

㈏ 이 사건 전세권은 비진의 의사표시 내지 통정허위표시에 의하여...