1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around April 2004, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was revealed that D, the former wife of D borrowed money with the Plaintiff’s certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression without the Plaintiff’s permission. The Plaintiff had completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 150 million to the Defendant on April 23, 2004, who was sentenced by the father E and the Defendant at the time of the registration of the establishment of the real estate of this case.

However, the establishment registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage is null and void because the secured debt does not exist, and even if the Defendant’s loan claims exist, the extinctive prescription is complete as it did not exist before the instant lawsuit was filed, so the Defendant ought to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment

Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted, the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage is valid only within the scope of the Defendant’s principal and interest claim.

2. The registration is presumed to have been duly completed when the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed. As such, the person who asserts that the registration is null and void bears the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da18914, Oct. 12, 1993; 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). The Plaintiff asserts that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case was completed to be exempted from compulsory execution, and that there is no secured claim or the Plaintiff’s father E had already been repaid.

However, the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 as well as witness D’s testimony is insufficient to admit the Plaintiff’s assertion (in the case of F, document No. 2-3, document No. 2-3, document No. G and the Defendant appeared as witness in the divorce lawsuit against G and the Defendant, on the premise that the secured debt of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of the instant case is against the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently.

Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and witness D's testimony and oral argument, the defendant is the defendant.