1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to the real estate indicated on the attached real estate to the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that C, who was the Plaintiff’s foundation, borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant on September 7, 2012 from the Defendant, and as a security, completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the attached real estate indicated in the order (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage on the attached real estate owned by the Plaintiff”) to the Defendant as indicated in the attached real estate owned by the Plaintiff, is not a dispute between the parties.

2. Where a third party is involved in an act of disposal, not by the direct act of disposal of the registered titleholder prior to the determination of the plaintiff's assertion, the registration of the current registered titleholder shall be presumed to have been duly made even if the third party claims that the former registered titleholder is the agent of the former registered titleholder, but the latter did not have the authority to act on behalf of the former registered titleholder.

If the registration document of the former registration titleholder was forged by a third party, the registration of the current registration titleholder, regardless of whether or not the former registration titleholder is recruited by the third party, should be cancelled as registration of invalidation of cause.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da18914 delivered on October 12, 1993, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole by comprehensively taking into account the back to the instant case and the return to the instant case as follows: (a) Nos. 2, and No. 5-1, 2, 3, and No. 5-1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the evidence; (b) the witness D of the first instance trial, and the testimony of each party C, it may be recognized that C has completed the registration of the Plaintiff’s name by forging the documents under the Plaintiff’s name without the power of attorney; and (c) the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case should be cancelled as the registration

① The Plaintiff granted C an agency authority on the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case.

there is no evidence to deem that the instant establishment registration was entrusted with the affairs of the establishment registration of the neighboring property of the Republic of Korea.

(A) The letter of delegation for registration was also drawn up by C, and the certificate of personal seal impression attached to the letter of delegation was also issued by C instead of the Plaintiff himself. (2)