1. The defendant on August 14, 1993 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 1993, when C owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), C completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage that became C to the Defendant as the obligor C under the Cheongju District Court No. 14186 of receipt of the Cheongju District Court’s Support for each of the instant real estate.

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”). (b)

C On January 16, 2011, the deceased died (hereinafter “the deceased”), and at the time of the death, the deceased’s bereaved family was the Plaintiff, D, and E.

On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff, D, and E agreed on the division of inherited property with the content that the Plaintiff’s sole ownership of each of the instant real estate, which is the deceased’s inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The defendant's assertion was agreed from C to November 10, 2006 to receive KRW 35,000,000 under the name of the return of joint investment money with respect to each of the instant real estate. The right to collateral security in this case is to secure the right to collateral security in this case.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case should not be cancelled.

B. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has expired by prescription, the establishment registration of the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled.

The Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of the instant case.

C. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 of the judgment as to Sep. 25, 2006, C paid KRW 35,000,000 to the Defendant until Nov. 10, 2006 and agreed to be cancelled the right to collateral security of this case.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant has a claim against C as agreed amount (hereinafter “instant agreed amount claim”), and the instant right to collateral security is to secure the said agreed amount claim.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the obligation of this case was extinguished by prescription.