1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the Plaintiff’s 1983m2, K forest and 2876m2, Gangnam-si M, and N apartment 404 on one parcel, which is the Plaintiff’s ownership, a contract for the establishment of a collateral security (Evidence B (Evidence B (Evidence 5) was completed on July 19, 2010, with the maximum debt amount of each of the said real estate as joint collateral, KRW 110,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee as the Defendant of the collateral security (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a collateral security”) was completed on July 19, 2010.

B. On November 21, 2012, Jan-si Jan-si and 2876 square meters of K forest are 950 square meters of land in C forest, 3414 square meters of land in D forest, 101 square meters of land in E forest, and 433 square meters of land in F forest, following the merger, registration conversion, and division.

On November 20, 2015, G, which is another mortgagee, filed a voluntary decision to commence auction on each of the above real estate, on November 20, 2015. At the auction procedure, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 52,157,485 to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, on June 9, 2016.

C. On June 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution of the instant case.

【Unsatisfy-based ground for appeal】 Unsatisfy-based ground for appeal; evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4; evidence Nos. 3, 7; purport of

2. Determination

A. The validity of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is not by the direct disposal of the owner of the real estate, but by the third party involved in the disposal of the real estate, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is presumed lawful, even if the mortgagee claims that the third party is the agent of the owner of the real estate. Therefore, the owner of the real estate who claims the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void has no right to represent the third party, i.e., the owner of

The burden of proving the invalidity of the registration procedure, such as forging the registration document of the owner of the real estate by the third party or the owner of the real estate.