1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendants are with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants, D, E, F, and G are siblingss, and H are the Plaintiff and the Defendants, D, E, F, and G’s mother.

B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 24, 1975 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on July 24, 1975, and on July 21, 1975, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 30, 2004 in the Plaintiff’s future on January 29, 2004, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 12, 2012 with respect to each of 1/7 shares as gift on September 12, 2012.

C. On the other hand, on April 7, 2006, regarding the instant real estate, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage as stated in the Disposition No. 2 (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) was completed by designating the debtor, the debtor, and the mortgagee as the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) First, the Plaintiff asserts that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled since the Plaintiff kept the registration right, certificate of seal imprint, and seal imprint, etc. of the instant real estate to H without the Plaintiff’s permission. 2) Next, the Plaintiff asserts that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled since the establishment of a mortgage of this case is null and void due to the absence of a secured claim.

B. As to whether the registration of the establishment of a neighboring to the instant case was completed pursuant to the foregoing Article, if the third party involved in the establishment rather than by the owner’s direct establishment, the mortgagee, etc. claims that the third party is the representative of the owner, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring to the instant case is presumed to have been completed lawfully, and thus, the registration is requested to be cancelled on the ground that the registration is void.