1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The housing of 66.12 square meters and 67.47 square meters and 30.02 square meters and 30.02 square meters and 572 square meters in the Jung-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant one real estate”) were co-owners of E and F. On the grounds of sale as of October 9, 2006, Ulsan District Court received on November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of 82752 square meters and received on November 1, 2006.

B. On December 1, 2006, the Ulsan District Court received on December 1, 2006, 92824, registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage under the name of the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, and the Defendant B, as to the instant real estate, respectively, and registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage under the name of the said court with respect to each of the instant real estate 1 and 2 as the receipt of the maximum debt amount No. 6458, Jan. 21, 2008, as the above court No. 6458, 70 million won, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee C, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as "the ground for recognition") of the establishment registration of each establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the defendants, the facts that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport prior to the pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's Dong (former name: H)'s birth holds the plaintiff's certificate of seal impression, and without the plaintiff's delegation, concluded each contract to establish a mortgage with the defendants and completed the registration. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's establishment of a mortgage is invalid registration.

In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have publicly announced the true state of rights, and thus, the party asserts that the registration was unlawful is the burden of proving the objection to the reversal of the presumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 201). In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is not a direct establishment by the owner, but a third party is involved in the establishment act, the mortgagee, etc. is the representative of the third party.