1. On September 14, 2012, the Defendant received on September 14, 201 from the Suwon District Court Head of the Suwon District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff issued, on September 13, 2012, a promissory note with a face value of KRW 400 million, issue date, September 13, 2012, which became the Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff, along with the instant promissory note, issued a notarial deed with a content that, even if a notary public delays the payment of the instant promissory note under Article 768 of the C/L’s C/L, he/she did not object to compulsory execution.

B. As to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, the registration of creation of a collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) was completed on September 14, 2012, which was received on September 14, 2012 by the head of Suwon District Court, which was based on the contract to establish a mortgage as of September 14, 2012, as to the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million, the debtor, the mortgagee, the Defendant of the right to collateral security, and the grounds for registration.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured claim of the instant mortgage does not exist. In household affairs, the secured claim of the instant mortgage exists.

It is also a promissory note claim of this case, and the promissory note claim of this case expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Ultimately, the instant right to collateral security was established effectively.

Now, the family affairs were established effectively.

Even if the secured claim has expired due to the completion of prescription, the mortgage of this case also became extinct.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

(2) On February 25, 2012, Defendant lent KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff. The above loan claims are the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security. Family loan claims are not the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, even if they are not the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security.