1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff, C, and D shared part of their shares (27147/40 shares) in the instant land before the instant partition, Kimcheon-si, E, 44089 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”). (The Plaintiff: 690/40 shares, C: 510/40 shares, C: 510/40 shares, D: 27147/40 shares, 9561/31380 shares, 9561/31380 shares), D completed the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring land on July 2, 2013.

B. After the instant partition, the land prior to the instant partition was subdivided into 22810 square meters in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, 22810 square meters in F forest, 4420 square meters in G forest, and 16859 square meters in G forest. The Plaintiff, pursuant to the co-owned property partition agreement with C and D on January 24, 2015, decided to have the land of 22810 square meters in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si as the Plaintiff’s sole ownership, and completed the registration of transfer with respect to C and D shares in the said forest on January 29, 2015

C. As can be seen, the registration of partition of co-owned property was completed on the land of this case as to the land of this case, Kimcheon-si, E, 22810 square meters, and the registration of creation of the ownership of the neighboring forest of this case remains in existence, and the said forest

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the claim is that the mortgage of this case was established as part of the share of D among the land before the division of this case, and the land of this case, which was owned by the plaintiff alone, has no share of D, and it does not reach its effect, and since the plaintiff and the defendant did not have a claim and obligation, the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case should be cancelled as the registration of invalidation.

B. Where real estate is divided after the establishment of a right to collateral security with respect to a part of the real estate sold, the right to collateral security remains as it existed on each divided real estate, and each divided real estate becomes a joint collateral for the right to collateral security, and it does not naturally focus on the part that was divided in the future of the person who created the right to collateral security.

Therefore, it is true.