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

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was owned by the Plaintiff’s husband C. On December 4, 2002, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of voluntary auction in the Plaintiff’s future. On the same day, the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was completed under Article 97364 of the Jeju District Court’s receipt, which was KRW 33.6 million, and the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was completed on June 17, 2015.

B. The instant real estate was sold to E on April 12, 2016 after the voluntary auction procedure was conducted. The registration of establishment of mortgage of the instant real estate was cancelled due to the sale due to the voluntary auction, and the Defendant received full repayment of the secured debt of the instant real estate in the said auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim. The Plaintiff borrowed money from the Plaintiff’s spouse after borrowing money from D with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate and the certificate of personal seal impression, etc., and the instant mortgage was established without permission, and the ten-year extinctive prescription has elapsed from June 3, 2003, which is the due date for the secured obligation. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no secured obligation of the instant mortgage, and sought confirmation of the existence of a debt against the Defendant.

B. As seen earlier, the ownership of each real estate of this case was transferred to a third party upon the completion of the auction procedure for each real estate of this case, and the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case was cancelled, and the defendant recognized that the principal and interest of the secured obligation were distributed in the auction procedure of this case and the secured obligation based on the mortgage does not exist. The secured obligation of this case was established from the beginning on the premise that the mortgage of this case was effective.