1. On September 21, 2015, the Defendant received on September 21, 2015 from the Daegu District Court for the Plaintiff’s unregistered real estate indicated in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is owned by the Plaintiff, and C is the former spouse of the Plaintiff.

B. On September 21, 2015, the Daegu District Court: (a) registered the creation of a mortgage on the instant real property at KRW 45,000,000,000, around the mortgagee, C, the debtor, the maximum debt amount, and the maximum debt amount; (b) had been completed on September 21,

(hereinafter referred to as “instant collateral security”). [No dispute over evidence], Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the witness C’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, and the testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void since C, who was not delegated by the plaintiff with the authority to establish a collateral security, arbitrarily affixed the plaintiff's seal impression on the power of attorney, etc. and completed the registration of a collateral security.

Even if C did not receive the right of representation from the Plaintiff after the closing of the argument in the instant case, the Defendant had justifiable grounds to believe that C had the right of representation for the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s establishment of an expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, and the Plaintiff is responsible for the establishment of the right of representation as a mortgagee. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act is constituted.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

① Even if there exists a common right of representation between husband and wife, it would be extremely exceptional to confer upon the spouse the right of representation on the obligee’s debt-sharing agreement with the obligee to jointly and severally bear the obligation of the spouse’s business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da54942, Apr. 8, 197).