1. The Plaintiff, among each real estate listed in the separate sheet,

A. As to Defendant C’s share 2,970/17,820:

B. Defendant D.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff borrowed money from M and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list owned by the Plaintiff as collateral (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) on the mortgage-mortgage M, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, under the agreement to establish a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case”).

B. On January 15, 1993, the supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security was completed on the ground of the transfer of the right to collateral security on January 10, 1993 at the time of the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (N) and O (P).

C. On July 4, 2013, theO died and succeeded to Defendant H(C), Defendant I, J, K, and L(children).

B, as the heir died on June 24, 2016 during the instant lawsuit pending, Defendant C (C), D (Child), E (Child), F [the wife of the net QB (Death on December 3, 2009 as a child of QB)] and G (the children of the network Q) were succeeded to the lawsuit.

[Ground of Recognition] Defendant C, D, E: Defendant F, G, H, I, J, K, K: Each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the purport of the entire testimony and arguments of the witness R.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's loan obligation against M, which is the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case, was fully extinguished due to repayment or completion of extinctive prescription, against the defendants who succeeded B andO as the transferee of the instant right to collateral security of this case.

B. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s debt to M was extinguished due to the repayment of the loan due to Gap’s expiration of the loan due to the repayment, the statement in the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the response to the order to submit financial information to S Co., Ltd. by this court, and the witness R’s testimony alone. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(c).