1. The Defendants registered the establishment of a mortgage on the same list as the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 9, 1996, D completed the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on its own ownership on the same list to E.

B. On February 3, 200, E died on February 3, 200, Defendant A, his spouse, Defendant B, and C jointly inherited the property.

C. On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D, etc. on the claim for the amount of money transferred to the Plaintiff as Incheon District Court Decision 201Ga2213, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that “Defendant D shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 137,224,812 out of KRW 274,449,624 and KRW 28,611,455 of the total amount and KRW 12% per annum from February 9, 2011 to the date of full payment,” and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 21, 201.

D is insolvent because there is no particular property other than the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff bears obligations based on the above judgment.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The extinctive prescription shall run from that time, since a claim without a determination and conclusion basis may be exercised from that time to that time.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the maturity period for the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has been fixed, the said claim could have been exercised from March 9, 1996, which was the date of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, barring any special circumstances, and as long as it is apparent that ten years have passed thereafter, the said claim had already been extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.

Therefore, upon the Plaintiff’s subrogation request, the Defendants, E’ heir, are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the instant mortgage establishment registration to the Plaintiff.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.