1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the real estate stated in paragraph 1 of the attached list, Defendant B shall obtain the Suwon District Court’s registration office.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2014, the registration of creation of a collateral for the real estate indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached list owned by the Plaintiff was completed on May 30, 2014, including the maximum debt amount of 3.8 billion won, D with the debtor, the mortgagee B

B. On May 23, 2014, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as Defendant C with the real estate listed in [Attachment List Nos. 2 and 3 owned by the Plaintiff as a joint collateral, was completed on May 23, 2014.

C. On May 23, 2014, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on the real estate stated in [Attachment List Nos. 4 and (5) owned by the Plaintiff as a joint collateral, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.5 billion, the debtor E, and the Defendant Incorporated Incorporated Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Gyeong Puld Co., Ltd. (Seoul, but the mutual registration was completed on June 30, 2014, at the time of the establishment registration of a mortgage).

Plaintiff

On May 30, 2014, the real estate set forth in the separate list Nos. 6 and 7 as joint collateral was registered as a collateral on May 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and each of the above collective security rights (hereinafter “each of the instant collective security rights”) are null and void by the forged documents without resorting to the Plaintiff’s intent. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of each of the instant collective security rights to the Plaintiff.

B. In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 7 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the argument as a result of appraiser F’s appraisal, the establishment registration of each of the following units of this case is deemed invalid because the third party forged the plaintiff’s signature and seal while making a letter of delegation, written consent to provide security, written consent to transfer of credit, and concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendants.