1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the establishment registration of a mortgage in the name of the defendant (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a mortgage in this case”) was completed on April 6, 2007 with respect to the real estate indicated on the attached real property indicated on the basis of the facts is not disputed between the parties or may be recognized by the entry in the evidence No. 1.

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion that ① the secured claim in the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case was extinguished by the prescription, or ② the real creditor of the loan claim, which is the secured claim C, the registration of establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case in the name of the defendant must be cancelled as the registration of invalidity which is not due to the absence of the secured claim or against the nature

B. The Plaintiff’s signature and seal on the debtor column of the loan agreement (the certificate No. 1; hereinafter “the loan agreement of this case”) is not a dispute between the parties, and thus the authenticity of the entire loan agreement of this case is presumed to have been established. As long as the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case was completed on the basis of the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case, the secured creditor of the loan of this case is the Defendant.

The plaintiff asserts that at the time of signing and sealing on the loan agreement of this case, the creditor column was a disturbance and the actual creditor is C.

As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intent as stated in the contents, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that the contents of the document were denied, and generally, it belongs to the case that part of the document is signed and delivered in the state of complete completion, and therefore, the person who prepared the document must prove that there was a blank blank part at the time of delivery of the document and that it was supplemented ex post facto.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da100923, Aug. 22, 2013). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is true.