1. The defendant is Daegu District Court with respect to the non-party B's share of the non-party B among each real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Each of the registrations of initial ownership in the name of Nonparty B (hereinafter “each of the registrations of initial ownership”) was completed with respect to one-third shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B seeking cancellation of registration of ownership preservation by the court No. 201GaGa1654, and the said court rendered a favorable judgment against B on the ground that each of the instant real estate was originally owned by the Plaintiff and each of the instant real estate in the name B, and “B shall execute the procedure for cancellation of registration of each of the instant real estate preservation registration completed with respect to one-third shares of each of the instant real estate,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On the other hand, on October 31, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of each of the instant real property under the name B (hereinafter “registration of creation of each of the instant real property”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million, the debtor B, and the mortgagee B as the defendant, the Daegu District Court No. 68186, the receipt of the previous lawsuit not registered as the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, each registration of the ownership preservation of B in the name of the defendant was invalid, and each registration of the establishment of each of the instant units in the name of the defendant was based on each of the instant units in the name of the defendant, the registration of the establishment of each of the instant units in the name of the defendant was invalid, and thus, the registration of the invalidity of the cause also constitutes the registration of the invalidation of cause. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of each of the

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.