1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1. of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment is identical to that of partial revision. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

o Nos. 9 through 12 of the 8th trial decision of the first instance court, "As the plaintiffs did not raise any objection, they granted trust to the defendant company by giving up the benefit of the completion of the extinctive prescription or by showing the same attitude that the prescription should not be invoked even after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the defendant company exercised its right within a reasonable period from the time when such circumstance occurred. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for the completion of the statute of limitations against the principle of trust and good faith was adopted."

o Part 9 of the first instance court judgment No. 9 "B" shall be added to "K".

o In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the preceding part of the 18th judgment of the first instance court, "and in the preceding part of the 6 and 7th judgment of the court of first instance, at the time of the public auction procedure by a disposition on default on or around 2011, the service on K is made by means of service by public notice. It is true that K could not know the above facts in reality, and there is no circumstance to see that the plaintiff A and K were living together at the time."

o Decision 10 No. 2 of the first instance court judgment "No. 2, 4, 6, and 6" shall be added to "No. 2, 3, 6," and "No. 2."

2. Conclusion

A. Accordingly, the Defendant Company: (a) performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage near the real estate that was completed on February 10, 1997 by Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, Masan Branch Office, which was completed on February 10, 1997 pursuant to the Act No. 1848 with respect to the real estate of this case No. 2, 3, and 6; (b) as a mortgagee in the auction procedure for the real estate rent of real estate of this case, 30,000,000 won distributed as a mortgagee; and (c) thereafter, from April 10, 2015, the date following the date of receipt of the dividend, the delivery of the purport of the instant claim and the application for modification