1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Defendants are the Daejeon District Court's Taean Registry on March 10, 1992 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap 1 to 13 (including the number of pages).

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”).

B. On March 10, 1992, the Daejeon District Court's Taean District Court's registration office of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter "mortgage of this case") with the person holding the right to collateral security (hereinafter "mortgage of this case") against the non-party F, was completed.

C. The Defendants are co-inheritorss of the network F.

(Inheritance shares are 1/4, respectively). 2. The Plaintiff asserts that “The instant right to collateral security is null and void since it was made without the secured obligation, and thus, should be cancelled, and even if there is a domestic obligation, the extinctive prescription has expired and the obligation has become extinct.”

As to this, Defendant E asserts to the effect that “the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to the network F, and the instant right to collateral security was made by an agreement between the parties as a subordinate measure to secure the ownership transfer.”

Therefore, it is not sufficient to prove that the secured debt of this case is false, and even if the secured debt of this case is recognized, it is obvious that the extinctive prescription of the secured debt of this case has expired, and therefore, Defendant E’s above assertion is without merit to further examine it.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.