1. The defendant on January 14, 2008, as to the real estate stated in the attached list in the plaintiff's attached list, for the family court of Jung-gu District Court.

1. The fact that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage”) was completed on January 10, 2008 with the attached list list owned by the Plaintiff on January 14, 2008, which was concluded on January 10, 2008 by the Jung-gu District Court of the Republic of Korea (AB) (hereinafter “the registration of a creation of a neighboring mortgage”) pursuant to the contract, the maximum debt amount of which was KRW 1,00,000,000, and the debtor C and the mortgagee B, is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was invalid because the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case did not exist for the non-party company, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case

In the event that the establishment registration of a mortgage has been completed, the registration is presumed to have been lawful and to have publicly announced the state of true right. Therefore, the party asserting that the registration was unlawful is responsible to prove the opposing fact that the presumption is reversed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da72763 Decided April 10, 201, etc.). Since the establishment registration of the instant near the instant case is presumed to have been duly completed according to the presumption of registration as above, the Plaintiff seeking the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration was null and void, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was completed without the cause of the establishment registration of the instant near the instant case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that since the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case expired by prescription, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring

According to the facts admitted above, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case is completed.