1. The Defendants filed for registration with the Ulsan District Court on April 26, 1991 on the real estate stated in the attached real estate list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 25, 191, the Western Housing Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Seo River”) entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, network S, and T on April 25, 191 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) with a maximum debt amount of KRW 153 million with respect to the real estate stipulated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”). On April 26, 191, the said agreement completed the registration of creation of a mortgage set forth in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the

B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate on May 10, 1993 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 27th of the same month.

C. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above joint mortgagee in Busan District Court for registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security on the ground of repayment of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, but on December 29, 1997, the decision dismissing the claim against the joint mortgagee (hereinafter referred to as "related case") was pronounced since it was not accepted as the claim for repayment of the secured debt. The above decision became final and conclusive on March 21, 1998.

On October 8, 2012, the network S succeeded to Defendant H, I, J, K, L, M, and N. The network T died on July 20, 1997 and succeeded to DefendantO, P, Q, and R.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, it is determined that the claim secured by the right to collateral security of this case has expired due to the expiration of the ten-year extinctive prescription period from March 21, 1998, which became final and conclusive, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to cancel the instant right to collateral security on the ground that

3. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted to the effect that the cancellation of the right to collateral security is unjust in light of the good faith principle even if the secured obligation was not fully repaid. However, such special circumstance as the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff did not have the Defendant B exercise its right, was trusted as if the secured obligation was to be repaid at will.