1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 and the entire purport of the pleadings:

On August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate by establishing a contract as of August 9, 2016 (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage”) under the Seoul Central District Court’s Branch Registry No. 34179, Aug. 9, 2016, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000, the debtor C, and the mortgagee of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant establishment”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The mortgage contract, which is the cause of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the establishment of a mortgage, was concluded with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not grant the right of representation to the said C on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the said mortgage contract cannot be effective against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant should implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case, which is null and void for the Plaintiff.

B. In the event that the registration of transfer of ownership does not directly act by the former registration titleholder, but by a third party is involved in such act, the registration by the former registration titleholder is presumed to have been duly made even if the third party claims that the former registration is the agent of the former registration titleholder. As such, the former registration was not the former registration titleholder claiming the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void, that is, there was no authority to act on behalf of the former registration titleholder.

The above legal doctrine holds the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration procedure, such as forging the registration document of the former owner, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009).