1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendant's statement in Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 14, which the defendant submitted in the trial of the court of first instance, is insufficient to admit the defendant's assertion. The third 7, "the plaintiff" of the court of first instance, and the "decision No. 3," of the court of first instance," and the "Decision No. 4, No. 5, and No. 5, No. 4)" of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Rule】 3. Judgment

A. In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage does not directly act by the owner of the real estate but by the third party involved in the act of disposal, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is presumed to have been completed lawfully even if the third party is the agent of the owner of the real estate. Therefore, the owner of the real estate who claims the cancellation on the ground that the registration is null and void, who did not have the right to represent the third party as the owner of the real estate

The third party bears the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration procedure, such as forging the registration documents of the owner of the real estate, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da18914, Oct. 12, 1993; 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the facts recognized in the judgment of the relevant criminal case may be used as reliable evidence in a civil trial, except in a case where it is deemed that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the criminal judgment as it is, in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, in a case where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da27055 Decided September 14, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12603 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.) B.

(A) No. 1 (A copy of indictment), No. 2 (A certified copy of judgment), and