1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on November 24, 2014, based on sale and purchase as of November 24, 2014.

B. On February 11, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant real property, based on the contract concluded as of February 11, 2015, with respect to the establishment of a mortgage on the basis of the contract concluded as of February 11, 2015, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 15 million, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee, respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 5-2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the cost of remodeling multi-household housing located in Busan Bupyeong-gu D to the network C, and received the ownership of the instant real estate due to payment in substitutes.

However, as the net C’s debt concerns the enforcement of the instant real estate by other obligees, the instant mortgage was established in the name of the Defendant, even though there was no obligation against the Defendant.

As such, the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security does not exist, so the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled due to the invalidity of the cause.

B. In the event that the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed, the existence of the corresponding secured debt is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 68Da2329, Feb. 18, 1969). The registrant of the registration is presumed to have acquired the right by legitimate grounds for registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da791, Jun. 22, 1982). In the instant case, the following cases were examined: (a) the fact that the Plaintiff created the instant secured mortgage under the name of the Defendant was found to have been acquired by legitimate grounds for registration; (b) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff created the instant secured mortgage under the name of the Defendant even though the Plaintiff did not have the secured debt; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion.