1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s branch office of Suwon District Court for the branch office of Sung-nam branch.

The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage - the registration of the ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff was completed on July 20, 2015 at the Sungwon District Court Branch of Sung-nam Branch of Seoul District Court on the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case").

- As to the instant real estate, the Suwon District Court’s branch registry office of Sung-nam Branch of the Sungwon District Court (hereinafter “the instant mortgage”) concluded a contract on May 30, 2016 with the establishment of a mortgage on May 30, 2016, which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000,000,000, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the Defendant of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant mortgage”) as the grounds for registration.

[Reasons for Recognition] A. The plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument by the parties to the lawsuit was that her husband C needed for the registration of resignation of representative director D Co., Ltd., and did not delegate his/her authority to establish the instant right to collateral security without the plaintiff's consent, by forging the power of representation in the name of the plaintiff by using the above documents. The establishment of the instant right to collateral security without the plaintiff's consent. The registration of establishment of the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled as the registration of invalidation.

The instant real estate claim for Defendant title trust was purchased by C as his own money, but owned as a title trust to the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant real estate was owned by C. Therefore, it is effective registration that conforms to the substantive relationship.

At the time of the establishment of the instant right-based collateral security, C had the Plaintiff’s seal impression, identification card, and the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression issued. Therefore, there was a legitimate authority to represent the Plaintiff.

Apparent Representation C did not have the authority to establish the instant mortgage by the Plaintiff.

Even if at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security of this case, the plaintiff and C as a married couple had the right to enjoy a daily family affairs, and C had the right to exercise the right as a basic right of representation.