1. As to the portion (Plaintiff I), 3/7 of the 7733 square meters of forest land in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, as to Plaintiff I’s portion (Plaintiff I’s portion):

A. Defendant J. J.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The establishment registration of a mortgage on June 29, 190, which was based on the mortgage agreement dated June 28, 1990 with the amount of KRW 39 million as to C/C forest land in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the amount of KRW 770,000, KRW 1000,000,000,000 for the mortgage contract dated August 20, 1990; ② the establishment registration of a mortgage on August 18, 1990, which was based on the mortgage agreement dated August 18, 199; ③ the establishment registration of a mortgage on November 27, 191; ③ the establishment registration of a mortgage on November 26, 199; ④ the establishment registration of a mortgage on June 3, 199; ④ the establishment of a mortgage on June 29, 199; and ④ the obligor’s maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000,00.

B. W died on February 26, 1999, and his inheritors jointly inherited the deceased’s property according to their statutory shares in inheritance.

(Defendant K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, J, each 1/11 shares in T.

V died on September 19, 2003, and its inheritors completed the registration of co-ownership transfer on November 30, 2006 on the above forest land by inheritance.

[Plaintiff I(C) 3/7 shares, A, X 2/7 shares, respectively] D.

On August 6, 2007, 37 square meters of the above forest were divided (Y) and 7733 square meters of the above C forest (hereinafter “the instant forest”) were left in accordance with the Naz.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the entire pleadings (Defendant T), and a confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act (Defendant J, K, L, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, and U)

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the debt covered by each of the above collateral security rights has already expired after the lapse of ten years from the due date as stipulated in Article 162(1) of the Civil Act, and the extinctive prescription has already expired, the plaintiff I is obligated to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case No. 1, and the defendant J is obligated to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case No. 1, and the defendant J, K, L, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, and T are each of the above 2 and 3.