1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Plaintiff Company asserted that, although the Plaintiff Company did not have consented to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage, the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage was null and void because the head of the law firm delegated by the Defendant B through the Defendant B forged necessary documents for the registration of the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage and cancelled the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage, the registration of the cancellation was made without any cause, and thus, the Plaintiff Company sought against the Defendant B the declaration of consent to the said registration.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, witness G, H, F, and witness I of the first instance trial, the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the existing establishment was made upon the application of the chief of the law firm delegated by Defendant B. However, the above chief of the law firm without confirming the intent of the Plaintiff company, such as taking contact with the Plaintiff company, is recognized as having prepared the termination certificate, which is a document necessary for the registration of cancellation, and the power of attorney of the Plaintiff company, using the seals

B. Since the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is presumed to have been duly completed not by the act of directly applying for registration of cancellation, but by the third party, even if the registration was cancelled due to involvement in the act of the application, the previous mortgagee claiming registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security was not entitled to represent the third party, i.e., the third party, on the ground that the registration

incurred or third party.