1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The defendant is about C with respect to the area of 1,908 square meters prior to ASEAN-si.

1. On behalf of C, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as stated in the above purport of the claim on behalf of C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage as stated in the Disposition No.

The court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim against B, while the defendant's claim against B was dismissed.

Accordingly, since only the plaintiff appealed on the part against the defendant, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.

2. The following facts may be found in Gap evidence No. 2 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

C The registration of ownership transfer is completed under the receipt No. 44878, Dec. 24, 2001 with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 7, 2001, on the ground of sale as of December 7, 2001.

B. On March 27, 2007, C concluded a contract to establish the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the instant land on the ground of the contract on the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) on March 27, 2007 and completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”).

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the mortgage contract of this case constitutes false declaration of conspiracy and thus null and void, and there was no legal act establishing the secured claim at the time of the establishment of the mortgage of this case. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to implement C with the procedure of cancelling the registration of the mortgage of this case.

The plaintiff, as a national tax creditor of the insolvent C, seeks implementation of the procedure for registration cancellation by subrogation of C.

B. The plaintiff's claim is a false declaration of one conspiracy.