1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the Plaintiff’s answer 1,518 square meters in Pakistan-si:

A. Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 201, Defendant B concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant real estate of KRW 200,000,000 with respect to the instant real estate and KRW 1,518 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) between the Plaintiff on May 31, 201, Defendant B concluded the mortgage agreement with the obligor E and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”). On June 11, 201, Defendant B completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of the instant real estate”).

B. After that, at the F’s request claiming that the Plaintiff has the authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring real estate was completed on August 17, 201 at the same registry office, which was received on August 17, 201, as of August 17, 201, as of August 17, 201, and as of August 59255, 201.

C. On October 5, 2011, Defendant B concluded a mortgage agreement with Defendant C with the maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000, the debtor G and the Defendant C as the mortgagee, and concluded a mortgage agreement with Defendant C with Defendant C with respect to the instant real estate, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed on October 13, 201 with respect to the instant real estate as the receipt of No. 74970 on October 13, 2011.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The registration of establishment of the Plaintiff’s relocation of the instant case was unfairly cancelled upon F’s request, irrespective of the Plaintiff’s intent.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to implement the procedure for the recovery registration of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case, and Defendant C, who completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant real estate after the registration of the cancellation of the instant case, is obligated to express his/her consent to

B. Since the cancellation registration of this case made upon the request of F, the Plaintiff’s agent, is valid, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unlawful.

3. Judgment of this case.