beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons why a party member of the court of first instance shall explain this case are as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because the defendant's reasoning is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments in
2. The defendant asserts that although the plaintiff set up a subordinate mortgage to the defendant's right to collateral security on the land of this case at the beginning, he did not take any measures while leaving the status of cancellation of collateral security, and claiming priority dividend on the ground that his right to collateral security was cancelled immediately after the cancellation of priority right is against the good faith principle.
The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff intentionally neglected the cancellation status of his/her right to collateral security, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, a registration is a requirement for taking effect of a real right and is not a requirement for existence, and if a registration is cancelled without any cause, the validity of the real right is not affected, and the registration titleholder whose registration has been cancelled even before the completion of the registration for recovery is presumed to be a legitimate right holder. A registration for recovery of cancellation is made for the purpose of holding the same effect as that of cancellation from the beginning, by restoring the registration cancelled where all or part of a certain registration was cancelled unlawfully, and thus, if the cause of cancellation is null and void, a third party with an interest in the registration is obliged to accept the procedure for recovery registration without asking his/her good faith and bad faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997).