1. The plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendant B and C are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's pro rata Credit Union

1. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the legitimacy of each lawsuit against Defendant B and C is ex officio, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate was cancelled without any cause solely on the grounds that the registration was completed based on forged documents. However, the mortgage on the real estate, which existed in the sold real estate, is naturally extinguished (see Articles 91(2) and 268 of the Civil Execution Act). Thus, the mortgage on the real estate, which existed in the sold real estate, is naturally extinguished after the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was cancelled at the auction procedure at the request of the right holder, such as another right holder of a mortgage (see Articles 91(2) and 268 of the Civil Execution Act). If the decision to permit

Therefore, in the course of a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for recovery registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the declaration of consent for the registration of recovery, which was cancelled without any cause, the decision of permission for sale became final and conclusive as a matter of course with respect to the real estate which is the object of a collateral security, and if the purchaser paid the sale price in full, the right to collateral security established on the sold real estate is naturally extinguished. As such, there is no legal interest in seeking consent for the execution of the procedure for recovery registration of the establishment of a collateral security or for the registration of recovery, which was cancelled without any cause (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da28025, Dec. 11, 2014). In this case, comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and arguments of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7, 8, 14 (including each serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s entire land owned by the Defendant as the obligor and the Defendant as the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “the maximum debt amount”).