1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 8, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) through a voluntary auction and owns it until the closing of argument in the instant case.

B. As to each of the instant real estate, the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was completed on September 16, 201 under the name of C on October 14, 201, on the grounds of the contract for establishing the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”). After February 13, 2012 and February 21, 2012, the additional registration of the instant right to collateral security was completed on the ground of transfer of contract as of January 31, 2012 under the name of D on February 19, 2014, and the additional registration of the instant right to collateral security was completed on the grounds of transfer of contract as of February 19, 2014 under the name of the Defendant on February 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was entirely unaware of C, D, and the Defendant. 2) The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case is null and void as the registration completed by the forged cause document.

3) In addition, the Plaintiff did not affix the seal on the instant certificate of assignment of the right to collateral security, and since C and D did not notify the Plaintiff of the transfer of the right to collateral security or the right to collateral security, registration of additional registration before the instant registration in the name of the Defendant is null and void. (B) Since the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security is presumed to have been completed lawfully, the real estate owner who requested the cancellation on the ground that the registration is null and void bears the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration procedure, such as there are circumstances to suspect that the registration procedure has not been lawfully carried out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da99112, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the evidence No. 2, according to the Plaintiff’s entry in the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff was from September 16, 2011 to October 14, 2011 (the date of the instant contract to collateral security.