1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment asserted that since the non-party C conspireds with the defendant to borrow money from the defendant and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff without the plaintiff's permission, the above registration of establishment of a collateral security should be cancelled as the registration invalidation of the cause. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion and judgment are insufficient to accept the registration of establishment of a collateral security, and the testimony of the witness C alone, which seems consistent with the plaintiff's argument, and there is no other

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff permitted the establishment registration of the neighboring premises of the instant case at the time of the establishment registration, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the statement Nos. 1 through 4, the witness C and D’

① From January 2013, C had been residing in the same house as the Plaintiff by January 2, 2013.

② At the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, C made a statement that the Plaintiff’s seal impression had been brought to the Defendant without permission, and the Defendant stated that C and the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security with C while knowing the fact. However, C and the Defendant became aware of Nonparty D’s introduction for the instant monetary transaction, and the Defendant first lent money on the condition that C and C were to lend money on the condition that D would not lend money without any collateral. In light of the above, it is difficult to believe that C’s statement was made.

③ Even after September 7, 2012, the completion of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of the instant case, two of the establishment of the instant real estate as the principal debtor was completed on November 29, 2012 and March 29, 2013, but the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against the Defendant or C regarding the registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate of the instant case at the time of the establishment of the said additional mortgage.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.