1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff received the request from B to request that each of the instant real estate be provided as a check in executing the PF lending to C before bankruptcy. On December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), which is owned by the Plaintiff, with respect to each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). Since there is no ground for registration of each of the instant real estate mortgages, each of the instant real estate mortgages does not exist, and thus, the registration of establishment of each of the instant real estate units should be cancelled.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage on the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 11 (10) was completed with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 11. However, unlike the plaintiff's assertion, the establishment registration of a mortgage on the real estate mentioned in the above paragraph (11) was completed with the Seoul Central District Court's registration office No. 53895, Aug. 31, 2010, whose maximum debt amount is KRW 10,604,100,000.

It is recognized that the establishment registration of each of the instant real estates was completed on each of the instant real estates.

The presumption power of real estate registration affects the fact that the registered titleholder is a legitimate right holder, the cause is legitimate, and the registration procedure is duly made. As such, the claimant must prove that there is no ground for registration of each of the rights to collateral in this case. The evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that there is no secured claim of each of the rights to collateral in this case as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 8,157,00,000 from B on August 31, 2010 as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 11 between B and B.