example that there is no latest method of attack and defense at time;

The judgment of the court below is not an attack and defense method at the time, even if it is alleged that the representation was made or ratified in the appellate trial, and it is not an attack and defense method at the time.

Article 138 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (64A465) in the first instance.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

The attorney of the plaintiff shall perform the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was passed through, as, No. 4563 on March 24, 1964, in relation to the plaintiff's 12 and 12 in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (detailed address omitted) and 12 in the above ground and 2 in the 2nd and 7th in the 10th and 7th in the 10th 2nd and 7th in the 195.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney is seeking the same judgment as the disposition.

According to the facts that the seals and seals of Nonparty 1 were originally owned by Nonparty 2, and that the registration of the establishment of the above mortgage was completed under the name of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, who was the owner of the above non-party 4's seal and the non-party 2's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 1, and that the registration was completed on March 27, 1964 by the court below for the non-party 2's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 4, which was the non-party 1's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 5's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 1, which was the non-party 4's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 1, the non-party 2's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 4, which was the non-party 1's signature and seal affixed to the non-party 2's non-party 1, who was the non-party 1's title of defense.

The plaintiff asserted that the act of creating the right to collateral security was conducted by false representation, and as shown above, the present evidence, which seems to be invalid, is not believed by the court, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Furthermore, in light of the fact of exhibition recognition, it is sufficient to conclude that the establishment registration of the right to collateral security was conducted by the non-party 1 by the fact that the above establishment registration of the right to collateral security was conducted by the non-party 1 as the security of his obligation. Accordingly, this argument is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff on the ground that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the defendant in wartime is null and void of the cause of the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate in this case shall be dismissed immediately. Thus, since the original judgment in this conclusion is unfair, the original judgment is so unfair, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 89, and 9

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)