1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 2013, the Seoul Western District Court completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of “contract to establish a mortgage on April 25, 2016,” which is KRW 100 million with the mortgagee C, the obligor, and the maximum debt amount. (B) After that, the Seoul Western District Court completed the additional registration of the right to collateral security transfer to the Defendant on the ground of “transfer of the finalized claim on September 7, 2015,” under Article 90341, which was received on November 23, 2015, on the ground of “transfer of the finalized claim on September 7, 2015.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On April 25, 2013, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) Company D recommended the Plaintiff to sell the instant real estate to himself; and (b) Company D met the said D on April 25, 2013; (c) Company D stolen the document bags containing the Plaintiff’s registration right, certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, and seal, which were kept on the Plaintiff’s next auxiliary seat; and (d) Company D executed a contract to establish a collateral with Company C without permission on the basis of the foregoing documents, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage.

Therefore, since the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of

B. In the event that the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have publicly announced the true state of rights, and thus, the party asserting that the registration was unlawful is responsible for proving the opposing fact that the registration was reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 201). The registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage is not based on the owner’s direct establishment but by a third party involved in the establishment.