1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 1, 2014, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) was completed in the name of the Defendant on the ground of the obligor C, the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the same day-based mortgage contract under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “mortgage”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 8

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant created the instant right to collateral security regarding the instant real estate.

The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void because D, the former husband of the Plaintiff, without the consent of the Plaintiff, brought about real estate related documents from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case must be cancelled by the registration of invalidity of cause.

B. In the event that the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have publicly announced the state of true right. Therefore, the other party who asserts that the registration was unlawful is liable to prove the opposing fact to reverse the presumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da72763 Decided April 10, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 92Da30047 Decided October 2, 1992, etc.). According to the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Articles 6 and 9 of the Evidence Nos. 6 and 9, the Plaintiff was found to have failed to directly attend a certified judicial scrivener office where the Plaintiff was the former husband of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. for establishing the instant mortgage contract on August 1, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff appears to have failed to directly prepare documents for establishing the instant mortgage contract.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire statements and arguments of Nos. 7, 8, 10, and 11, namely, the Plaintiff’s former husband, as well as the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression issued directly by the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014 in order to borrow money as security for the instant real estate.