1. C:

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant A shall have jurisdiction over the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Busan District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C, the Busan District Court rendered on November 28, 1997 the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of a collateral security”) to Defendant A, the wife of which was the debtor himself and which was 300,000,000 won with the maximum debt amount received on November 28, 1997.

B. C completed the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership on September 18, 1998 (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) against Defendant B, his spouse D’s neighboring land in the attached list Nos. 1 to 3 of the attached list No. 1 to 1, 1997, the Busan District Court of Busan, Busan District Court, as the receipt of No. 3720 on September 19, 197.

C. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013Kahap549398, the joint and several surety E and its executive officers, and sentenced C to the judgment that “C shall pay the amount of KRW 515,00,000 to the Plaintiff as joint and several surety,” and this judgment became final and conclusive on June 18, 2014.

On the other hand, C is not able to fully repay the obligation of the Plaintiff as of the closing date of the argument of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 4-14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Grounds for the claim;

A. Although the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendants, C completed the registration of the instant right to collateral security and the provisional registration of the instant case (the provisional registration of collateral security) and borrowed the actual domestic money.

Even if the obligation to return a loan has expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, it is argued that the registration of the right to collateral security and the provisional registration of the instant case should be cancelled, and it is claimed against the Defendants in subrogation of C as a creditor of C.

B. As to this, the Defendants lent money to C without fixing the due date, there is not only the actual existence of the secured obligation but also the extinctive prescription does not run.