1. The Defendants, on March 12, 1984, filed by the Gwangju District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The obligor completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage registration of this case”) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, F owned by the G, the mortgagee, and the maximum debt amount, as of March 12, 1984, by the G, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount, as of March 12, 1984.

B. The F died and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on May 29, 2017 due to the inheritance due to the division by agreement from June 3, 1993.

C. The mortgagee G of the instant case died on December 12, 1986, and the spouse and the parent-child of the Defendants died on July 4, 2005, and the Defendants were the heir of G at present.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1, the inquiry result of the fact-finding on the Isksung-gun Isksung-gun of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings (Defendant Eul is deemed as confession)

2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, upon request of the deceased F, the registration of the right to collateral security was completed by the deceased F, and even if the secured debt exists, the extinctive prescription of the instant right to collateral security should be revoked. 2) As to this, Defendant D’s assertion that: (a) there was an entry that the deceased F and the denial of the right to collateral security should be found to be against the deceased G or H, and that it was against the deceased F and the deceased lending money; and (b) the Plaintiff was covered for 34 years in order to avoid giving money.

B. Therefore, the burden of proof as to the secured claim of the right to collateral security lies on the part of claiming its existence (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). There is no evidence as to the existence of the secured claim of the right to collateral security registration of this case.

Even if the secured claim exists in the registration of the instant right to collateral security, it is apparent that the ten-year statute of limitations has passed since the registration date of the instant right to collateral security, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a measure to interrupt the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff himself.