1. As to the share of 19/168 out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Defendant C:

A. The Defendants are Daejeon District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for the payment order to Defendant C as Daejeon District Court 2008 tea3876, and on May 6, 2008, the above court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the payment of KRW 16,75,785 won and the amount of KRW 8,248,901 at the rate of 17% per annum from May 2, 2008 to the date of full payment. The above order was finalized on May 24, 2008.

B. On August 28, 1987, I entered into a mortgage contract with J, and completed the establishment registration of a mortgage with regard to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by I on September 1, 1987 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court No. 34240, Sept. 1, 1987, received on September 1, 1987, as the receipt of the record No. 34240, Jun. 1, 1987.

C. In addition, on October 13, 1989, I concluded a contract to establish a mortgage with Defendant A, and on the same day, the Daejeon District Court completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage in the vicinity of the maximum debt amount of 100 million won (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of a mortgage of each of the instant cases”).

I died on August 25, 1994, and Defendant C, a child, succeeded to the 19/168 shares of the instant real estate.

E. On June 7, 2002, the mortgagee J succeeded to the property of J by the Defendants, who are children.

F. Defendant C did not have any property other than shares 19/168 out of the instant real estate as of the closing date of the pleadings of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is clear in the record that ten years have passed since August 28, 1987, which was the date of the contract to establish a mortgage, and October 13, 1989, the date of the contract to establish a mortgage. As such, each of the collateral obligations of the instant case has expired after the completion of prescription, and the establishment registration of each of the collateral obligations of the instant case should be cancelled according to the nature of the appendant.

On the other hand, Defendant C does not have sufficient capability at the time of the argument in this case.