1. The plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is related to the real estate recorded in the attached list between the defendant and the extraC and concluded on December 29, 2011.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of Nonparty Ma C (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On February 14, 2014, the deceased died and succeeded to his property as the only legal inheritor.

B. The deceased is the owner who completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his name on February 4, 2004 as the ground of sale on February 4, 2004 with respect to the 1190 square meters per Dong-si, Leecheon-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. As to the instant real estate, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 480,000,000 on January 2, 201 and December 29, 2011, was completed due to the establishment of a mortgage agreement, and the mortgagee’s establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage”) with the Defendant, and the additional registration was completed with regard to the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage”) with the value of KRW 180,00,000 on April 2, 2013 as of March 28, 2013 on the ground of the amendment agreement, as of March 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the instant claim

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties did not bear any obligation against the Defendant, the Defendant, in collusion with the deceased and the Defendant, presumed to have completed the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage by false intent. Even if there was no proof by the Defendant as to the fact that the deceased was responsible for the obligation secured by the establishment registration of the instant neighboring collective security, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that there was no obligation secured by the establishment registration of the instant neighboring collective security, and further sought cancellation of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring collective security as a claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership.

In addition, all documents secured by the defendant as the basis for the debt guaranteed by the right to collateral security of this case are forged regardless of the deceased's will.