1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. On April 11, 2013, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff was completed under the name of the Defendant, as the receipt of the Government Registry of the Jung-gu District Court’s District Court on April 11, 2013, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff as the obligor, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff as the receipt of the same registry office on June 7, 2013, under Article 50197.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the right to collateral security established on April 11, 2013 among each of the above right to collateral security has been established according to the Plaintiff’s intent, but the right to collateral security established on June 7, 2013, which was established on June 7, 2013, should be cancelled since it was established without permission against the Plaintiff’s intent, on the ground that the head of the office of the Defendant’s certified judicial scrivener C office, who

In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage has been completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have been made public notice of the true state of rights, and thus, the party asserting that the registration was unlawful is responsible to prove the opposing fact that it may reverse the presumption of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 201). In the event that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is not based on the owner’s direct establishment, but is involved in the establishment act by a third party, even if the mortgagee, etc. claims that the third party is the representative of the owner, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is presumed to have been duly made, so the owner requesting the cancellation of the registration is the owner who has no right to represent the third party, namely, the opposite fact

The third party shall bear 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). The evidence Nos. 2 and 3 alone are the same.