1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is the Suwon District Court’s Sung-si registry office with respect to the area of 4,241 square meters prior to E in Sung-si.

1. Basic facts

A. 4,241 square meters prior to E in terms of harmony (hereinafter “instant real estate”) were owned by F. The F died on July 9, 2005.

B. 1) Then, the net F (hereinafter “the network”).

B) both wife G, children, H, I, J, K, and L have renounced inheritance. The said I renounced inheritance of M, N,O, and the said M’s subsidiaries, and Q, R, S, and T, which are children of the saidJ, renounced inheritance. The said K renounced inheritance, and W and X, which are U, V, and the above L’s children, renounced inheritance. 2) The deceased’s parents were already dead before the deceased’s death.

3) The deceased’s brothers and sisters had Y and Z. Among them, the Z had already died on September 2, 1989, which was before the deceased’s death. The Plaintiff is one of the children of the network. As to the instant real estate: ① the obligor A and the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million were received on February 5, 1996 on the same day by the Suwon District Court, 6063, which was received on the same day by the registry office, and ② the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed on October 9, 1996 under the name of the obligor F and the maximum debt amount of KRW 90 million, and the establishment of a mortgage was completed on April 1, 1997 under the name of the Defendant C under the name of the same registry office, ③ the obligor F and the obligor F and the maximum debt amount of KRW 2019,2300,000,000,000 won, and there was no ground for dispute over the establishment of a mortgage over the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 16.

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B

A. As to Defendant B’s main defense of safety and its determination, Defendant B’s main defense of safety was the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff asserted that the secured obligation of Defendant B was extinguished, and the Plaintiff was one of the co-owners of the instant real estate, and sought the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage under Defendant B’s name, Defendant B was incorporated into a “AB downtown River Restoration Project” zone in which the instant real estate was implemented at the time of its compatibility.