1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring neighboring real estate”) was completed on January 2, 201 by the Busan District Court, Busan District Court’s Division No. 2226, Jan. 25, 201, based on the terms of the relevant date-based contract as of January 25, 201, the maximum debt amount of which was KRW 200,000,000, the debtor, and the mortgagee C.

B. On February 2, 2012, following the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) was completed on the ground of the contract that was concluded on the same date (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”) as the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court No. 2855, Feb. 2, 2012, the maximum debt amount was KRW 150,000,000, the debtor, the debtor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) E completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and deleted it at the Plaintiff’s request. At the time, E completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case, which was possessed by the Plaintiff at the time with the necessary documents for its cancellation, without any authority, and without any authority. Since the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case was invalid, the registration of the establishment of a new neighboring mortgage of this case was sought for its cancellation. 2) Moreover, the Plaintiff did not bear any obligation against the Defendant, but did not express the Defendant’s intent of a water guarantee. Thus, the registration of the establishment of a new neighboring mortgage of this case, which was established to secure the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant, was different from the debtor, and sought for its cancellation

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1 delegated E with “the authority to conclude the instant mortgage contract by proxy for the Plaintiff,” and accordingly, delegated the same.