1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The defendants' lawsuit acceptance is based on the lawsuit acceptance of the defendants.

1. The grounds for this court’s recognition are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s “Defendant” is changed to “Defendant’s decedent A” and the grounds for the judgment of the first instance are as follows; and (b) such change is cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the extinctive prescription of the secured claim of this case was completed, the secured claim of this case as to the secured claim of this case as to C's goods price claim, and the extinctive prescription of the secured claim of this case was completed on March 31, 2002 after three years from March 30, 1999, which was the expiration date of the period for the supply of goods.

(Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act and Article 163 subparag. 6 of B of the same Act (debted against the plaintiff) are recognized as above. Thus, in order to preserve the claim for reimbursement based on the above final judgment, the plaintiff may seek against the defendants the cancellation of the registration of creation of a new mortgage of this case where the secured claim is extinguished.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to implement B the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case according to the inheritance shares.

B. 1) The Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendants’ assertion against B on May 2, 2008 against the Busan District Court Decision 2008Da11229 and the original copy of the payment order for the same month was served to B, but B did not raise any objection. In addition, C filed an application for an order to specify the property against B on June 30, 2008, and was not served due to the addressee’s uncertainty. In light of the above circumstances, B may be deemed to have waived the prescription benefit. 2) The obligor who is entitled to receive the judgment benefit after the expiration of the statute of limitations period, may waive the statute of limitations benefit after the completion of the statute of limitations period, and this expressed that the obligor would not receive the legal benefit due to the completion of the statute of limitations.

In addition, the determination of whether there is an expression of intent to waive such benefit of prescription shall be made by the parties, the contents, motive and background of the act or expression of intent.