1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

Although the Plaintiff did not offer the instant real estate to the Defendant as collateral, the Defendant’s employees B, C, and D, etc., in collusion with F of the attorney-at-law office E, voluntarily prepared a private document under the name of the Plaintiff, and subsequently completed the registration of each collateral security and superficies creation as stated in the Defendant’s claim

Therefore, each registration under the name of the defendant should be cancelled.

Judgment

In the course of a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, if the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled on the ground of a successful bid, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57904, Jan. 10, 2003). The same applies to the registration of the establishment of a superficies.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, since the defendant was recognized to have cancelled the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage and the registration of creation of superficies on October 4, 2018 as stated in the purport of the claim on October 4, 2018, the plaintiff had no legal interest to seek cancellation of each of the above registrations against the defendant.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

In conclusion, the instant lawsuit is dismissed.