1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall make a regional court of Suwon-nam Branch on March 2013.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On June 19, 2013, C borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant real property (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”) on the ground of the debtor C, the mortgagee, the defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million as stated in the Disposition No. 1 of this case on the ground of the contract to establish a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”).

C. The Plaintiff’s father, D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff”), who was the Plaintiff’s father, filed a fraudulent accusation against C around July 2013, but was in the status of suspending prosecution as of November 8, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5

2. The parties' assertion

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the registration of invalidity of cause that C, which is unaware of the Plaintiff’s establishment registration, was completed to the Defendant without legitimate power of attorney.

B. The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage in the instant case, summary of the Defendant’s assertion, was completed by the Plaintiff’s right of representation lawfully conferred upon C, and even if it was done by a non-authorized representation of C, the apparent representation is established.

3. Determination

A. In the event that the registration of transfer of ownership does not directly act by the former registration titleholder, but by a third party is involved in such act, even if the former registration titleholder claims that the third party is the agent of the former registration titleholder, the registration of the former owner is presumed to have been duly made. Therefore, the former owner was not entitled to represent the former owner, i.e., the latter owner, who requested the cancellation on the ground that the registration is null and void.

In light of the above legal principles, there is a reason to suspect that the registration procedure has not run lawfully, such as forging the registration document of the former owner, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009).