1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant Japan Saemaul District Court shall have jurisdiction over Chuncheon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 26, 2005, the Korea Asset Management Corporation received a recommendation for performance from the above court on November 29, 2005, stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 47,596,711 and its delay damages,” and the above decision was finalized on January 5, 2006.

B. On October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against B from the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

C. On July 24, 1995 with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), B, on July 24, 1995, completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 35 million with the maximum debt amount, and on July 22, 1997, the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 35 million with respect to the Defendant A’s maximum debt amount.

On February 21, 2000, the defendant Il Saemaeul Community Fund merged with the Yongsan Saemaeul Community Fund, and Eul fully repaid the secured debt of the right to collateral security of the defendant Il Saemaeul Community Fund.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the secured claim under the name of the Defendant community credit cooperatives was extinguished due to the repayment, and it is apparent that the Defendant’s mortgage claim under the name of the Defendant A had been ten years since July 11, 1997, on which the right to collateral security was established. Thus, the secured claim under the above right to collateral security was extinguished after the completion of the prescription period.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that both the right to collateral security and the right to collateral security under Defendant A’s name have ceased to exist due to the appendant nature. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to implement registration procedures for cancellation of the right to collateral security.

B. As to Defendant A’s assertion and judgment, Defendant A received part of the loan claim against Defendant A until 199, and thereafter, Defendant A died and his bereaved family’s economic form is not good, thereby exercising the right to collateral security.