A. The real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and E at the ratio of 1/2 shares.

B. E, on March 31, 1996, concluded a collective security agreement with F and/or 1/2 share of the instant real property with the amount of KRW B, the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on April 1, 1997.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

F on November 17, 1998, the F had completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security of this case on the ground of the transfer of confirmed claim dated November 16, 1998 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts as seen earlier, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security occurred around March 31, 1996, which was around the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, and it is apparent that the extinctive prescription period has elapsed since the lapse of ten years from the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, and it became apparent that ten years have passed since the expiration of the prescription period on March 31, 2006, which was prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the Defendant should implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Plaintiff who owns one-half shares of the instant real estate.

On April 19, 2013, the Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted since B, the debtor, was present as a witness in the Gwangju District Court 2013Kadan508 case of cancellation of the right to collateral security, and approved the secured debt.

However, according to the evidence Eul's evidence No. 2, it is acknowledged that Eul appeared as a witness in the above case and recognized the time limit for the secured obligation of the secured obligation of the right to collateral security concerning the land Gohap-gun G (hereinafter "the separate land") which is not the instant right to collateral security, and it is difficult to recognize that Eul approved the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security, and there is no other evidence supporting the defendant's assertion.

Other reasons alleged by the defendant, that is, the defendant urged E to make a reimbursement.

(i) a separate case;