Whether the existence of the secured obligation is presumed if the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage has been completed.

When considering the fact that the establishment registration of a new mortgage has been made, it is presumed that the secured debt exists.

Articles 357 and 356 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (68Ga8974) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 68Da8974)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant confirms that, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list owned by the plaintiff, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon District Court's Dongdaemun-gu Registry No. 14878 of Jun. 21, 1968 does not exist any underlying claim for the establishment of a mortgage.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

With respect to the portion of the Plaintiff’s share in the real estate listed in the attached list, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the establishment registration of a collateral security contract was made on June 15, 1966 on the basis of the maximum amount of KRW 1,90,000,000 and the mortgagee’s right to collateral security contract.

The plaintiff's assertion that the non-party's keeping of the plaintiff's seal would constitute a principal lawsuit in order to obtain confirmation of the non-existence of the secured debt. Since the plaintiff's request for auction had been made by forging documents required for the establishment of a new mortgage by forging the plaintiff's above seal and forging the documents required for the establishment of a new mortgage, the plaintiff's request for auction will be made. Thus, it is presumed that there is no evidence sufficient to recognize the fact that the above registration was illegal like the plaintiff's principal, and it is presumed that there was a secured debt if considering the fact that the above registration was made for the establishment of a new mortgage, such as the plaintiff's principal office, and it is presumed that there was a secured debt. However, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the debt did not occur due to the transfer or repayment, and instead, if the defendant's statement on the evidence No. 1, which did not conflict with the establishment, and the purport of the defendant's oral argument, the defendant can recognize the fact that the establishment of a new mortgage had been made in order to secure it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit shall be dismissed with the grounds for appeal. This purport is just in the original judgment, and the plaintiff's appeal against the principal lawsuit is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge)