As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A shall be the Cheongju District Court Jeju Branch on August 8, 1996.

Facts of recognition

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

As to each real estate of this case, Defendant A completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 25,000,000 with the Cheongju District Court No. 18482, Oct. 24, 1996, and Defendant B completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000 with the Cheongju District Court No. 2520, Oct. 24, 1996.

(hereinafter “each of the instant collateral mortgages” (hereinafter “each of the instant mortgages”) is without dispute, and judgment as to the entry of the evidence No. 1 and the ground for claim as to the purport of the entire pleadings, the establishment registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendant A among each of the instant collateral mortgages was completed on August 8, 1996 and October 24, 1996 by the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendant B, as seen earlier. The Defendant A lent KRW 25,00,000 to the Plaintiff through C on August 3, 1996 without fixing the due date, and Defendant B lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff through D around October 1996.

According to the above facts, among the claims secured by each of the instant secured claims, Defendant A’s loans from August 4, 1996 to November 1, 1997 shall continue to have extinctive prescription. Since it is apparent that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired as of May 10, 2016, which is the date of the instant lawsuit, as of May 10, 2016, the claims secured by each of the instant secured claims had already expired prior to the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the instant mortgages to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendants lent money to the Plaintiff via C and D, and thereafter, they could not seek the return of the loan because they could not grasp the location of C and D, so the Plaintiff’s assertion of extinctive prescription is unreasonable, but the Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations is unjust.