1. The Defendant (Appointed) and the designated parties fall under the category of the attached list of the designated parties among the real estate in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant et al.”) together are the network C, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant et al.”) and the network.

As his wife and children, the deceased died on January 30, 1993, and became his inheritor. The specific inheritance shares of the defendant et al. are as shown in the separate sheet. B. On January 26, 1989, the plaintiff borrowed KRW 9 million from the deceased on January 26, 1989 from the deceased to secure the repayment of the borrowed debt, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

As to the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) in the Daegu District Court No. 1680, Jan. 27, 1989, the maximum debt amount of KRW 9 million, the debtor, the plaintiff, and the deceased, shall be deemed as the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”).

(C) On January 27, 1989, the Plaintiff entered into a promissory note with the face value of nine million won for the Deceased, the issuer, the Plaintiff, the date of issuance on January 27, 1989, the date of payment, the payment at sight, the place of issuance, and the place of payment, respectively (hereinafter “instant Promissory note”).

(B) On the same day, when a notary public delays the payment of a bill under the pretext of D as the Plaintiff’s agent, the notary public has the attorney-at-law in the joint law office E, etc., prepare a promissory note notarial deed stating that there is no objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution. [The facts without any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the right to collateral security should be cancelled since all of the secured debt of the instant case was repaid to the deceased. Accordingly, the Defendant et al. failed to submit a repayment receipt or a written confirmation on the deposit without passbook issued by the deceased, and the Plaintiff was in possession of the instant bill issued by the deceased until the time of death after the deceased was notarized. In light of the above, repayment shall be made.