1. The defendant,

A. An all-round indictment by the Jeonju District Court on the first real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff A

1. On January 15, 2008, the Plaintiffs entered into a mortgage contract, which constitutes a maximum debt amount of 130,000,000 won, with each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet with the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate,” and hereinafter referred to as “second real estate”) as joint collateral.

Accordingly, on January 16, 2008, with respect to the first real estate owned by the Plaintiff and second real estate owned by the Plaintiff, on January 24, 2008, with respect to the third through 5 real estate owned by the Plaintiff on January 24, 2008, each establishment registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the establishment registration of the neighboring real estate”) was completed by the debtor as the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs and the defendant's arguments

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage of the instant case did not exist from the beginning or that the prescription had already expired, and the defendant asserted that the establishment registration of a mortgage of the instant case cannot be deemed to have any ground and that the extinctive prescription was interrupted.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1, 7-1, 1, 10-1, 10 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 200, the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case as the mother of the Plaintiff A secured the loan claim of KRW 60,000 against the Plaintiff, who is the Defendant’s wife, and it does not seem to be a registration invalidation.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the time limit for payment of the above loan claims has been set differently, and even if the prescription period has been suspended for 10 years newly from that time by transferring KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant’s passbook on February 22, 2007, and remitting KRW 7,850,000 to the Defendant’s passbook from March 27, 2007 to December 7, 2007, as recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleading as a whole in the statement in subparagraph 3 of subparagraph 3.