1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On September 30, 2013, C, a child of the Plaintiff, stolen the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression, and the certificate of seal impression, which was urged by D to repay the loan debt amounting to KRW 70,000,000, and drafted a mortgage agreement with D to establish a mortgage on the land and building E (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) owned by the Plaintiff, instead of the Plaintiff’s consent.

As a certified judicial scrivener, the Defendant filed for the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring real estate on behalf of the Plaintiff and D, and completed the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring real estate of this case on October 1, 2013, with the maximum debt amount of 41 million won, C, and creditor D (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate of this case”).

D filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security against D on May 30, 2016, upon filing an application for commencement of a voluntary auction of real estate regarding each of the instant real estate, on February 22, 2016. The Plaintiff, upon being aware of this decision, filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security with the court No. 20160, May 30, 2016.

In the above lawsuit, the conciliation was concluded to the effect that D will cancel the registration of creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case when the plaintiff paid a certain amount to D.

Since then C forged a written contract to establish the above mortgage without the consent of the Plaintiff and received a final and conclusive judgment of conviction on February 10, 2017 with the criminal facts (the name of the crime: fabrication of private documents, uttering of the above investigation document, and false entry of the authentic copy of the authentic deed) that the mortgage was created in the future D in the above land and building owned by the Plaintiff.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number), and the entire argument, are between the Plaintiff and C, and there was no signature of the Plaintiff on all documents, such as a mortgage contract, and the Defendant could have easily confirmed the Plaintiff’s intent by telephone communications. In light of the above, the Defendant at the time of receiving delegation from C of the registration of the establishment of the instant root.