1. The defendant shall be located within 1412 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and 64.53 square meters in a prefabricated board for the above ground sculptures.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the biological friendly of Nonparty D (Death on September 25, 2015).

B. The deceased D was the owner of the building of 64.53 square meters in the Gyeonggi-do Unit C, 1412 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 64.53 square meters in the above ground-based collective building, which was located on May 11, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant building”). As to the instant building, the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed as of December 7, 2009 with the number of 11453, which was received on April 20, 2006 as of May 11, 2006, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed as of December 7, 2009 with the number of 35426, which was received on December 1, 2009.

C. As to the instant land and building, each of the instant registration offices established a contract to establish a mortgage (hereinafter “instant mortgage registration”) with the grounds for registration as of November 3, 2015, as of September 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”), as of September 30, 2015, the maximum debt amount was KRW 90,000,000, and each of the establishment registration (hereinafter “instant mortgage registration”) with the content that the debtor is the Plaintiff was completed.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the contract to establish the instant case was prepared by stealing the name of the Plaintiff without authority by the Defendant, the registration of the instant mortgage is invalid.

Therefore, the mortgage registration of this case must be cancelled.

B. Defendant’s summary 1) The Network D entrusted the name of the instant land and building to the Plaintiff (i.e., the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant land and building).

(2) Meanwhile, the Defendant is a creditor holding a claim for loans worth KRW 90 million to the network D, and the network D established the instant collateral security registration to the Defendant, the creditor of the instant land and building, which is one’s own ownership. Thus, the instant collateral security registration is not a registration invalidation. 2) The Plaintiff is against the network D.