1. The Defendants shall issue to E a high Government District Court senior branch office for each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a claim of KRW 79,886,239 against G.

B. G, based on the contract on May 4, 195 with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet owned by G, G, as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article, completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage of this case”) to F, as to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet owned by G (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. The FF died on October 21, 2002, and the Defendants were married to Korea.

G died on March 16, 2014, and E inherited by himself.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant claim by the Plaintiff is an invalid registration of the cause for which the secured claim does not exist. Even if the mortgage on domestic claims exists, the period of extinctive prescription expired after the lapse of ten years from the date of registration

Therefore, the Defendants, F’s inheritor, are obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage in accordance with their shares in inheritance, and the Plaintiff, as the creditors of E, seeks implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation in subrogation of E.

3. In full view of the facts stated in Eul evidence No. 3 and the witness H's testimony, G may recognize the fact that on February 28, 1995, G issued the F with the loan deposit certificate as of June 30, 1995, and the fact that it completed the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case in order to secure the above loan deposit obligation.

According to the above facts, although the secured debt of this case exists, it is determined that the expiration of the extinctive prescription on June 30, 2005 after the expiration of ten years from the due date.

The defendant asserts that G and F agreed to pay KRW 30 million on the above loan certificate when the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the F’s name with respect to the land of this case, but the witness H’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion is without merit.