1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is 150,000.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. As to each of the instant real property owned by the deceased C, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) was completed as of October 12, 2009 by the Gwangju District Court, No. 23365, Oct. 12, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000.

B. The deceased C died on June 24, 2010, and the Plaintiff, an son, inherited the deceased solely.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 15, 21, and 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the creation of the relocation of this case was completed even though the defendant, who invested in a multi-level company, was not liable for any debt, and the loan certificate (as referred to in subparagraph 2-1, hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case") was also forged by theft of the deceased's certificate of personal seal impression, seal imprint, etc. after the deceased's death. Thus, the mortgage of this case was established without the secured claim and thus null and void and seek cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the relocation of this case as the principal lawsuit

As to this, the Defendant: (a) arranged the principal of the loan claim up to October 1, 2009 at KRW 150,000,000 as the principal of the loan claim up to October 1, 2009, and prepared the instant loan certificate; (b) asserted that the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage was to secure the above loan, and sought reimbursement for the said loan to the Plaintiff who inherited the deceased as a counterclaim.

B. In the event that the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have publicly announced the true state of rights. Therefore, the party asserting that the registration was unlawful is responsible to prove the opposing fact that the registration was reversed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 2001). Evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, 14, 24, 29, 30 respectively.