1. The Defendants, on January 22, 1998, filed with the Plaintiff with respect to the area of H 383 square meters at the time of leisure water, Gwangju District Court Seocheon-gu Office of Macheon-si, Gwangju District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 6, 1994, the Plaintiff’s title I, as the Plaintiff’s partner, had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance of the property on March 12, 1984. On January 22, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of donation made on January 22, 2010 in the Plaintiff’s name.

B. On January 22, 1998, the deceased J (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) by the No. 1647, the receipt of the women’s net branch office of the Gwangju District Court, as regards the instant real estate.

C. The Deceased died on June 30, 2010, and the Defendants, a child, inherited the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case was formally established without actual monetary transactions, and even if not, the secured debt became extinct by prescription.

B. The judgment of the court below is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since it is a security established for securing a certain limit in a settlement term for the future a number of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral at the time of establishing the right to collateral exists

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the deceased returned to the instant case, and that there was a claim against I, the owner at the time of the establishment of the establishment of the mortgage of the instant case. Thus, the secured claim of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage between the deceased and I is the secured claim.