1. Defendant B: (a) on March 4, 201, the Changwon District Court Kim Jong-hae Registry on the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. As to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff on March 4, 201, the Changwon District Court Kim Sea Registry received on March 4, 2011, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage”) against Defendant B, the debtor as the Plaintiff, was completed on April 15, 201 by the registration office No. 40103, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage”) was completed on April 15, 201, with regard to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the debtor as the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant registration of establishment of a mortgage”) was completed on January 29, 201.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The registration of the establishment of each of the instant units is null and void, since the Plaintiff did not affix a seal or seal on the application documents for the establishment of each of the instant units of establishment, nor did there exist no secured claims for the establishment of each of the instant units of establishment.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of each of the instant units must be cancelled.

B. Defendant C, as a certified judicial scrivener in charge of the application for the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case, applied for the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case ① by using the application document for the establishment of a mortgage of this case with a false unmanned affixed without taking proper measures for identification of the Plaintiff as a certified judicial scrivener in charge of the application for the establishment of a mortgage of this case.

Accordingly, Defendant C has a duty to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 30,000,000, which is part of its maximum debt amount, as sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the part against Defendant B (1) evidence Nos. 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), and the whole purport of the argument as to the appraiser F’s unmanned appraisal result, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(a).