1. The defendant is about 3277/796 of the plaintiff's share in each real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 1998, the Plaintiff, an owner of 3277/77 shares (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) out of the respective real estates indicated in the separate sheet, entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant with regard to each of the instant real estates with the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 15 million with respect to each of the instant real estates, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring real estates”) on August 6, 1998.

B. At the time, on August 6, 1998, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the Defendant’s husband C, which is the Defendant’s husband, without having determined the due date for reimbursement, and completed the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring establishment of the instant case to secure this.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 to 9, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. First, the plaintiff asserted that around around 199, the above loan was fully repaid to C and the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case was extinguished. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the secured claim of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

In this regard, there is no dispute between the parties as to the period of repayment of the loan obligation, which is the secured debt of the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case. The extinctive prescription of the loan obligation was completed on August 6, 1998 after the date of occurrence of the credit.

As the facts raised on March 13, 2014, which was subsequent to the instant lawsuit, are apparent in the record, the extinctive prescription of the secured claim of the instant right to collateral has expired, barring any special circumstance.

On March 17, 2006, the Defendant alleged that C had been granted an execution clause and suspended for the said promissory note’s authentic deed on March 17, 2006. However, it is only the fact that C was granted an execution clause.