1. The plaintiff's appeal and the part of the claim changed in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 2007, the establishment registration was completed due to the contract concluded on July 11, 2007, with respect to C forest land 2,682 square meters and 565 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, which was concluded on July 11, 2007, with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 500,000,000,000, the debtor, the mortgagee, the Egypt Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Egypt”), and the grounds for registration.

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”). (b)

After that, on October 7, 2009, the registration of transfer was completed on October 9, 2009 on the ground of the assignment of claims.

C. As the instant real estate was sold to the forces assigned to the Daejeon District Court in the F voluntarily auction procedure with regard to the instant real estate, which was commenced on October 27, 2009 as a mortgagee upon the Defendant’s application as a mortgagee, on April 19, 2010, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the assigned military was completed. On October 1, 2010, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 118,580,482 in the distribution procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-4

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s existing assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage is null and void because there is no debt secured by the Plaintiff. Therefore, ① the Defendant, who received dividends from the mortgagee at the auction procedure filed by the previous Defendant based on the right to collateral security, did not have any legal cause, thereby making unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, or ② the Defendant, who infringed the Plaintiff’s ownership by selling the instant real estate to the assigned group at the auction procedure, thereby causing damages equivalent to the same amount as the Plaintiff suffered from the infringement of the Plaintiff’s ownership, and thus, sought a return of unjust enrichment or compensation for damages, claiming the payment of the amount

(B) As seen below, the Plaintiff added a new argument about the cause of the claim in the trial.

The establishment registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case was null and void, from 3 to 3.