1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

Each of the lands of this case is completed in the name of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with F from around 1994 to 2008.

F under Law No. 2603, Oct. 26, 2005, as to each of the lands of this case to the Plaintiff’s agent and Defendant B, as to the registration of establishment of a mortgage against the obligor F, Defendant B, and as to each of the lands of this case, under Law No. 9815, Apr. 11, 2006, as to the registration of establishment of a mortgage against the maximum debt amount of 70,000,000 won, the debtor, Defendant C, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee, as to each of the lands of this case, as to the registration of establishment of a mortgage against the land of this case, the Chuncheon District Court, Seocheon District Court, Seocheon-gu, and its registry office, and 3906, Dec. 24, 2007, the registration of establishment of a mortgage against the Defendant E, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and each of the Defendants E, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the following parties: (a) the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the instant mortgage (based on recognition); (b) the evidence No. 1-1 (No. 1-3; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the evidence No. 2 and No. 3 (No. 1-2; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (d) the testimony and the entire argument of the witness F of the first instance trial; and (e) the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not have any credit or debt relationship with the Defendants

However, since F forged documents in the Plaintiff’s name without any authority and established the instant mortgage against the Defendants, the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage is invalid, and thus, the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage should be cancelled.

The summary of the defendants' assertion is F borrowed money from the defendants as the plaintiff's agent, and the contract to establish a mortgage was concluded as a security, and accordingly the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed.

In light of the aforementioned facts, the fact that F had completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring trademark of this case against the defendants, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of F by the first instance court witness F.