1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. As to the real estate indicated in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff on the premise of the premise, the fact that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage under the name of the Defendant as stated in the purport of the claim, which was based on the mortgage agreement dated May 7, 2015 (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage”) was completed with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff on the premise of the premise is not a dispute between the parties concerned.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant neighboring area without permission by C, even though C did not accept or grant the right of representation on the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant neighboring area to C, which is the spouse of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Where the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have disclosed the state of true right. Therefore, the party alleged as unlawful in the registration is responsible to prove the opposing fact sufficient to reverse such presumption.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the following circumstances: (i) the Plaintiff’s seal impression is affixed and the Plaintiff’s resident registration card is attached; (b) the Plaintiff’s resident registration card is also attached to the Plaintiff’s legal address; (c) the Plaintiff is deemed to have an economic interest to provide water guarantee for the Defendant’s obligation; and (iii) the Plaintiff appears to have been in a mixed divorce phase; (iv) the Plaintiff appears to have been in a domestic dispute between the Plaintiff and C, and the Plaintiff appears to have any motive to deny ex post facto the underlying relationship of the establishment registration of a mortgage of the instant case due to a domestic dispute between the Plaintiff and C.