A. The defendant A is the Ulsan District Court.

A.F owns shares 14876/59504 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “instant one real estate”).

On August 4, 1989, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on August 3, 1989, which was caused by the Ulsan District Court's mid-gu registry office No. 896 on the above real estate, with the contract to establish a mortgage, the mortgagee A, G, and the maximum debt amount of 42 million won.

B. F owns the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “instant 2 real estate”).

On March 18, 1993, the registration of creation of a mortgage, which is the contract to establish a mortgage, B, and maximum debt amount of 40 million won, caused by the Daegu District Court No. 1298 of March 17, 1993, was completed on March 17, 1993.

C. G: (a) died on June 28, 2010, G succeeded to the heir C, Defendant D, and E’s property.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F with the Ulsan District Court No. 2004Gau17415, the plaintiff won the plaintiff's winning judgment (F shall pay the plaintiff 30,620,317 won and damages for delay of KRW 10,000 among them). The judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

In order to extend the prescription of a claim based on the above-mentioned claim for transfer money, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the claim for transfer money with the Ulsan District Court 2014Gaga14422, and the decision of performance recommendation was finalized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-7, Gap evidence 2, 3, and 5-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged collateral security obligation of the Defendants expired ten (10) years after the ten (10) years statute of limitations, and the above collateral security right has expired in accordance with the appendant nature. As such, the Plaintiff seek the cancellation of the right of collateral security by subrogation of F with the secured claim.

B. The above Defendants’ assertion against Defendant A, C, D, and E are deemed to have led to confession under Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the above defendants registered the establishment of the neighboring real estate of this case.