1. The defendant received on April 27, 1995 the permanent domicile registry office of the Daegu District Court with respect to real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1.

On April 8, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on January 25, 1994 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On April 27, 1995, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the instant real property on April 27, 1995, the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, the debtor, the debtor, and the mortgagee as the defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that the mortgage contract, which is the cause of the instant mortgage, is null and void based on false representation of agreement.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the agreement to establish a mortgage of this case was based on false agreement, and instead, at the first day of pleading of this case, C (the husband of the plaintiff) stated to the effect that “C borrowed KRW 20 million from the defendant and created the mortgage of this case with the consent of the plaintiff in order to secure the claim to return the above borrowed amount,” as the first day of pleading of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Next, the Plaintiff asserts that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has expired by prescription.

On April 26, 1995, the date of the contract to establish the right to collateral of this case, which is clear that the lawsuit of this case was filed after the lapse of 10 years from the lawsuit of this case.

(1) The right to collateral security of this case has expired by prescription, since the right to collateral security of this case has expired as the right to collateral security of this case, which is the right to collateral security of this case, which is the right to collateral security of this case claimed by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion.