1. The Defendants are the Gwangju District Court with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 13, 1998 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. As to each real estate of this case, the Gwangju District Court rendered a Manan District Court Decision 25083, Oct. 28, 1995, the maximum debt amount of KRW 9 million, the debtor D and the mortgagee E shall be deemed to be the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”).

(C) The registration of creation has been completed. E died on February 9, 2003, and its inheritor is the Defendants, their children. [The grounds for recognition: the absence of dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period on October 28, 2015, when ten years have elapsed since October 28, 1995, which was the date of establishment of the instant right to collateral security, or at least the date of establishment of the instant right to collateral security.

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the statute of limitations has been interrupted, but the burden of proving the interruption of the statute of limitations is borne by the parties disputing the completion of the statute of limitations, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion

In other words, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription is contrary to the good faith principle when the Plaintiff guaranteed D’s debt, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff guaranteed D’s debt, and even if the Plaintiff guaranteed D’s debt, such circumstance alone goes against the good faith principle to claim for the completion of extinctive prescription.

Since it is difficult to regard it as abuse of rights or there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

Therefore, the Defendants, the inheritor of E, are obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage as to each of the instant 1/2 shares among the instant real estate to the Plaintiff

3. Conclusion.