1. The Defendants shall have jurisdiction over the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff at the time of Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch.

Facts of recognition

Plaintiff

On May 1, 1987, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the Plaintiff, the maximum amount of the claims, E, which was three million won on May 1, 1987 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) was completed on February 26, 1987 (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”) and the registration of the establishment of the said right to collateral security was completed on July 8, 2018. E died on July 8, 2018, and jointly succeeded by Defendant B, Defendant C, and D, his wife, who were his wife.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant B and C did not dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 8 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings: Defendant D’s judgment by public disclosure service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act). According to the above facts of recognition as to the grounds of claim for judgment, the ten-year statute of limitation is deemed to apply to secured claims of the instant right to collateral security as general claims. However, in the instant case where there is no specific proof as to the due date of payment, even if the contract to establish the instant right to collateral security was concluded, the ten-year statute of limitation has lapsed since it was apparent that the secured claims of the instant right to collateral security was extinguished.

Therefore, the Defendants, the inheritors of E, are obligated to perform the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage concerning the instant real estate.

Defendant B and C’s assertion is asserted to the effect that Defendant B and C cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since they did not receive all secured claims from the Plaintiff.

Gab, E, the Plaintiff, was unable to receive the secured claim from the Plaintiff.

E’s secured claims are extinguished upon completion of the statute of limitations as seen earlier.

Therefore, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.