1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C does not obtain delegation from the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land, and as to the instant land between the Defendant and the Defendant, the reservation to sell and purchase the instant land (hereinafter “instant reservation”).

(2) The provisional registration of this case’s purport of the claim under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”).

(2) The provisional registration of this case should be cancelled in collusion between C and the Defendant on the ground that the instant provisional registration was made in collusion between C and the Defendant, and the instant provisional registration of this case should be cancelled inasmuch as the instant provisional registration is invalid as it is null and void as it is deemed that the instant provisional registration is an act by an unauthorized Representation and the Defendant was an act by gross negligence.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff delegated C with regard to the registration of creation of a security right, including the establishment of a provisional registration, to C, the instant trade reservation is valid, and the instant provisional registration based on the trade reservation is also valid.

2. Determination

A. In the event that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is not based on the owner's direct establishment, but the third party involved in the establishment, even if the mortgagee, etc. claims that the third party is the representative of the owner, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is presumed to have been duly made. Therefore, the owner who claims the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void, who was not entitled to represent the third party

The third party shall have the burden of proving the invalidity of the documents, such as the forgery of the documents necessary for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da56072 delivered on February 26, 199, Supreme Court Decision 93Da18914 delivered on October 12, 1993, etc.). B.

According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-1 and the whole arguments, the Plaintiff issued an identification card to a certified judicial scrivener on November 15, 2012.