1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On May 31, 201, C prepared a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), with a maximum debt amount of KRW 30,00,00,00 with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and with the Plaintiff and the obligee as the Defendant on the same day, the fact that C completed the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring real estate in the future of the Defendant does not conflict between the parties, or that it may be recognized by the respective statements stated in

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff issued the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and certificate of seal in order to allow C to participate in the real estate auction procedure under the Plaintiff’s name, and that C had possession of it, without the Plaintiff’s consent, set up the instant collateral security without the Plaintiff’s consent. Therefore, the establishment registration of the instant collateral security is null and void, and thus,

B. In the event that the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawfully made and to have publicly announced the state of true right, and thus, the other party alleged to have been illegally registered is liable to prove the dissenting opinion sufficient to reverse that registration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da72763 Decided April 10, 201, etc.). In addition, where a registration is made by an act involving a third party, not by a direct act of disposal of the former registered titleholder, but by an act involving a third party, where the former registered titleholder claims that the former registered titleholder has been granted the right of representation from the former registered titleholder, the registration of the former registered titleholder shall be presumed to have been duly made. Thus, the former registered titleholder seeking the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the above registration is null and void, that is, the former registered titleholder did not have the authority to act on behalf of

or a third party shall bear the burden of proving the invalidity of registration documents of the former titleholder, such as forging registration documents of the former titleholder.

Supreme Court Decision 199Na1088 delivered on October 1, 1993