1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the C-road C-road 506 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land by means of a contract to establish a contract, under title 8557, which was received on March 3, 2014, the Suwon District Court rendered the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land.

(hereinafter referred to as “the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”). 【The ground for recognition】 The entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant set up a building on the ground of the land of this case, and the plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the land of this case in order to secure the construction cost.

However, the defendant did not implement the new building construction agreement.

The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case is null and void because there is no secured debt.

B. In the event that the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawfully made and to have publicly announced the state of true right, and thus, the other party alleged to have been illegally registered is liable to prove the dissenting opinion sufficient to reverse that registration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da72763 Decided April 10, 2001, etc.). Each statement of No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, alone, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to newly construct a building on the instant land and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in order to secure the construction cost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the instant case is null and void.

Rather, the Plaintiff is a person who issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note worth KRW 50,000 at face value, and paid KRW 13,000,000 to the Defendant around April 2014, which was after the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring district, and according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1 and the entire pleadings.