1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is not by the direct disposal of the owner of the real estate, but by the third party involved in the disposal, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is presumed to have been completed lawfully even if the mortgagee claims that the third party is the agent of the owner of the real estate. Therefore, as the owner of the real estate claiming the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void, the third party did not have the right

The third party bears the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration procedure, such as forging the registration documents of the owner of the real estate, etc.

(1) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the purport of each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including serial numbers) as to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff is as follows: (a) the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, such as the claim stated in the purport of the claim that the Plaintiff and the mortgagee were the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage”) was completed on May 16, 2018; and (b) the Defendant may recognize the monetary claim against the Plaintiff at the rate of 77,430,000 won against the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from July 20, 2018 to the date of full payment.

However, the plaintiff, by deception of ASEAN, only the documents necessary for the establishment of the right to collateral, did not intend to establish the right to collateral, and was not the debtor of the right to collateral. Thus, the right to collateral security of this case is null and void, and the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security of this case to the plaintiff. However, it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of C's written statement (Evidence No. 4) that seems consistent with the plaintiff's argument, and it is different from the plaintiff.