1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is the Chuncheon District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos 1 and 2.

1. Basic facts

A. As to each real estate listed in Nos. 1 and 2 in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “Real Estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case”), the registration office of Yangcheon District Court was received on May 22, 1991 (the maximum debt amount of KRW 70,000,000,000, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage to the debtor E and the mortgagee Defendant B (hereinafter “B establishment”) was completed as to each of the above real estate as the registration office No. 3575, July 10, 191, the maximum debt amount of KRW 72,00,000,000, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage to the debtor E and the mortgagee Defendant C (hereinafter “the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the name of C”).

B. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 3 through 6, which the Plaintiff owned (hereinafter “instant Nos. 3 through 6 real estate”), the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate in the name of D”) was completed as the maximum debt amount of 30,000,000 won received on February 20, 1992 by the two-year registry offices of the Chuncheon District Court, as the maximum debt amount of 788 on February 20, 1992.

C. As the network E died on July 2, 1994, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 18, 2012 for the first and second real estate of this case due to the inheritance due to the division of consultation in the future of the Plaintiff, who was the son of the network E on December 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including each number), purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. To become effective as the secured claim of the right to collateral security, there must be a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da70041, May 28, 2004). Therefore, even if the right to collateral security was concluded, if there was no declaration of intent to establish the secured claim, the right to collateral security becomes invalid.

At this time, whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security.