1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is an owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 21, 2008 with respect to the area of 674 square meters and 311 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu.

As to each of the instant lands, the registration of creation of a mortgage over each of the instant lands (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage over each of the instant lands”) was completed on February 16, 2015, under Article 24627, which was received on February 16, 2015 by the Jung-gu District Court, Yangyang Branch of the High Court, the Defendant, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserted that there is no monetary transaction relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff, without permission, completed the registration of establishment of each of the instant neighboring areas to the defendant, and thus the registration of establishment of each of the instant neighboring areas is null and void.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff granted the right of representation for the establishment registration of each of the instant units to E and accordingly the establishment registration of each of the instant units was completed. Thus, the registration is valid, even if the plaintiff did not grant the right of representation to E, the plaintiff is responsible for the act of representation of E in accordance with the legal principles of ratification of expressive representation or unauthorized representation.

B. The judgment on the issue is 1) If the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is not based on the owner's direct establishment, but the third party involved in the establishment, even if the mortgagee, etc. claims that the third party is the representative of the owner, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage is presumed to have been duly made. Therefore, the owner who claims the cancellation on the ground that the registration is null and void shall bear the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration, i.e., whether the third party did not have the authority to act on behalf of the owner, or that the third party forged documents necessary for the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da18914, Oct. 12, 1993;