1. The defendant has the jurisdiction over the Goyang-gu District Court with respect to the amount of 967 square meters for the religious site in the case of selling to the plaintiff.

1. The fact that the registration of establishment of a collateral security right (the maximum debt amount No. 35297, Nov. 18, 1995; the maximum debt amount No. 35297, Apr. 12, 1996; the registration office of establishment of a collateral security right (the maximum debt amount No. 35297, Apr. 12, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the “instant collateral security right”) was completed with regard to C Religious Site No. 967§³ as the defendant, the debtor, and the plaintiff as the plaintiff may be recognized as the statement of the evidence No. 1. 1.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the establishment registration of the instant collateral security should be cancelled, since there is no secured debt of the instant collateral security.

However, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff completed the establishment registration of the instant mortgage in order to secure the loan claims while repaying the secured debt of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage registered prior to the time of selling the money from the Defendant with respect to C Religious Site 967 square meters, and cancelling the registration.

B. At the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security has been asserted to the defendant.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to support the defendant's argument as to the existence of the secured obligation.

Moreover, the establishment of a mortgage contract, which is a ground for registration of the instant right to collateral security, was made on Nov. 17, 1995 and Apr. 12, 1996, and the fact that the period exceeds ten years thereafter, has expired as far as it is apparent that the statute of limitations was expired.

(No evidence exists as to the Defendant’s assertion that the period of reimbursement has not yet arrived at. 3. In conclusion, the Defendant must cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage to the Plaintiff.