1.With respect to the non-party E and F with respect to the land size of 1,792 square meters in Mayang-do, Sejong-do:

A. Defendant B is the Changwon District Court’s close assistance.

1. Claim against Defendant C

A. Basic facts 1) Real estate listed in G’s order (hereinafter “instant real estate”)

(2) On June 26, 2008, the registration of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of establishment of a collateral security”) as stated in Paragraph (2) of the Disposition No. 30,000,000 on the ground of the contract establishing a mortgage as of June 26, 2008, was completed (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage No. 1

(2) The Plaintiff, who received the claim against G from the trustee in bankruptcy of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of the bankrupt H union, won the claim against G for the transfer amount under the Changwon District Court 2013Gada31669, and won the claim for transfer amount. The said judgment became final and conclusive on June 18, 2014.

3) Following the death of G on February 21, 2018, E and F, an inheritor, was tried on August 3, 2018 to accept the inheritance limit approval by the Changwon District Court was rendered under the Changwon Branch Branch Branch of 2018 Madan92. Of the inherited property list of the above qualified acceptance, active property of this case was included in the instant real property, small property was included in the debt amount of 30,000,000 won against Defendant C, and the small property was in excess of active property. [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1 through 6, Eul 1, and 2 evidence (each entry, including a separate number, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a creditor against E and F, and even if the secured debt of the instant right to collateral does not exist from the beginning or exists, even if it had expired ten years since the date of establishment of the right to collateral, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment of the instant right to collateral on behalf of the said Defendant on behalf of the insolvent debtor who was not exercising the right to claim cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security against Defendant C.

In this regard, Defendant C was also suspended extinctive prescription because the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was the debt of the loan actually existed, and E and F approved the loan debt by qualified acceptance.