The part concerning the claim for confirmation of existence of the obligation among the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Basic facts

A. A loan contract was concluded with the Defendant on April 11, 2019, KRW 70 million, and KRW 50 million on May 7, 2019 in the name of the Plaintiff.

The Defendant remitted the loan to the Plaintiff’s account on each of the above contract dates.

B. In order to secure a loan on the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the establishment registration of a mortgage on April 11, 2019, the maximum debt amount of KRW 91,00,000,000 for the Plaintiff, the debtor, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee, the establishment registration of a mortgage on May 7, 2019, the maximum debt amount of KRW 65,00,000,000 for the Plaintiff, the

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case” in addition to the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case completed on April 11, 2019). [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, 9, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, C, who is the Plaintiff, has stolen the Plaintiff’s driver’s license and obtained an authorized certificate by deceiving the Plaintiff.

C obtained a loan from the Defendant using the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, authorized certificate, etc., and concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case is the registration of the invalidity of cause.

In addition, since there is no secured debt of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage against the defendant, the plaintiff's non-existence of the secured debt is sought.

3. We examine this part of the claim, ex officio, as to the claim for confirmation of existence of an obligation among the plaintiff's claims.

A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed when the plaintiff's right or legal status is infeasible and dangerous, and the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, and when the person who created the right to collateral security seeks to confirm that there is no obligation to guarantee the establishment of the right to collateral security and seeks to cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground that there is no obligation to guarantee the right to collateral security.