1. The defendant on April 14, 1997 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 1997, when C owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), C completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage that became C to the Defendant on April 14, 1997 as the Cheongju District Court No. 10186 of the receipt of the Cheongju District Court support for each of the instant real estate.

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”). (b)

C On January 16, 2011, the deceased died (hereinafter “the deceased”), and at the time of the death, the deceased’s bereaved family was the Plaintiff, D, and E.

On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff, D, and E agreed on the division of inherited property with the content that the Plaintiff’s sole ownership of each of the instant real estate, which is the deceased’s inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. There is no secured obligation for the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Even if the secured debt exists, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case should be cancelled because it has been repaid or extinguished by prescription.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The secured debt of the instant right to collateral security is a loan claim equivalent to KRW 35,00,000 against the Defendant F. 2) The Plaintiff did not lend money to the Deceased and did not receive reimbursement.

3) The Defendant’s credit against F did not set the due date, and F gave interest to the Defendant even at present, and F said that F would repay the loan if there is a time limit for the Defendant at any time. Therefore, the foregoing credit has been suspended due, and the extinctive prescription does not run as long as the said credit has been suspended. 4) The Plaintiff’s claim is contrary to the good faith principle.

C. As to whether the secured claim of this case 1 was a loan claim worth KRW 35,000,000 against the Defendant F, the statement on the evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the secured claim of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, it is recognized in the above Paragraph 1.