1. The defendant is about each real estate listed in the separate sheet for the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 5, 2001, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet owned by the mother-friendly D (hereinafter “the deceased”) of the Appointor C on February 5, 2001, as the basis of the contract on February 2, 2001, in order to lend and secure the money to the Appointor C around 1997.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security” or “the establishment registration of the instant collateral security”). B.

The Deceased died on July 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff (the appointed party, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated party inherited the deceased’s property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Selection C prepared and executed a written statement to the Defendant on March 12, 2003, stating that “The principal borrowed from the Defendant on March 12, 2003 up to December 30, 2003 shall be repaid up to December 30, 2003.”

Therefore, as long as the statute of limitations of the loan claims against the Defendant’s designated party C, which is the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, runs from December 31, 2003, and as long as it is apparent that ten years have passed thereafter, the above loan claims have already expired by the expiration of the statute of limitations on December 31, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the plaintiff and the appointed

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Selection C would contact and repay the loan from 2009, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has been suspended.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.