1. The defendant shall have jurisdiction over the 12,234 square meters of C forest land at the time of sowing to the plaintiff on the Goyang-gu District Court on March 1, 2008.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 26, 2001, on the ground of the partition of co-owned property on February 18, 1999 with respect to C forest land 12,234 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. As to the forest land of this case, the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) was completed with respect to KRW 300 million, the mortgagee D, the debtor, the joint security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”), and the joint security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) against the Defendant on the same day as the date when the right to collateral security was transferred to the Defendant on the ground of assignment of claim on August 20, 2018, and the said right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant collateral security right did not exist but was registered with Nonparty F and D by forging documents, such as the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate, affixed the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate, and thus, should be cancelled as the cause of invalidation. In other words, even if the secured debt had already expired due to the lapse of the prescription period, and the judgment ordering the cancellation of the registration of the instant collateral security right becomes final and conclusive in the relevant case of revocation of fraudulent act, the registration of the instant collateral security should be cancelled.

B. 1) In the event the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been completed lawfully. As such, the owner of a real estate who claims the cancellation on the ground that the registration is invalid, who bears the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration procedure, such as there are circumstances to suspect that the registration procedure has not run lawfully.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da18914, Oct. 12, 1993) In this case, evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including virtual numbers, and evidence No. 11) can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings.