1. The defendant,

A. As to each share of 1/3 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 to the plaintiffs:

B. The plaintiff A.

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 holds 1/3 shares of each of the plaintiffs, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 is owned by the plaintiff A.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate” is added to each of the above real estate owned by the Plaintiffs.

D) On September 20, 1993, on the ground of the contract to establish the instant real property, Jinyang District Court, Namyang District Court, No. 58570, Nov. 18, 1994, received on November 18, 1994, completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (200,000,00

(hereinafter referred to as “registration of creation of mortgage of this case”).

D On March 11, 2010, the Defendant transferred the instant secured debt of KRW 200 million to the Defendant. On March 11, 2010, the Defendant completed the instant additional registration of the transfer of the instant secured mortgage as the receipt of No. 2237 of the receipt on March 12, 2010, on the ground of transfer of contract on March 11, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant right to collateral security is null and void as there is no legal act establishing the secured claim.

Even if there are claims secured by the right to collateral security above.

Even if the extinctive prescription has already been completed.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. On October 194, the defendant's father Eul delivered D with debt amounting to KRW 300 million. Accordingly, on October 10, 1994, D with one promissory note amounting to KRW 120 million at par value and one promissory note amounting to KRW 50 million at face value on October 13, 1994, and completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security in this case to secure the above debt.

In addition, D also guaranteed the debt of KRW 80 million to EF.

Therefore, the right to collateral security of this case is valid.

3. Determination

A. The right to collateral security is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future, and Article 357 of the Civil Code.