1. The Defendants, on December 31, 1996, shall make to C the Chuncheon District Court Crossing registry office with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 13, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against C by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da1154390, and received the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 13, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 13, 2011.

B. On December 31, 1996, C completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of creation of the right to collateral security”) with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) on December 31, 1996, on December 30, 1996, as the basis of the contract to establish the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of creation of the right to collateral security”).

C. On July 6, 1998, Defendant A completed the supplementary registration of the partial transfer of the right to collateral security of this case to Defendant B on July 3, 1998, which was based on the transfer of the right to collateral security of this case. D.

On the other hand, C is in excess of its obligation because it does not own any specific property at present.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if there is a ground for recognition) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff alleged that the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case was null and void because it was made by a false conspiracy between C and the defendant. However, in full view of the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 9 and the testimony of witness D, it can be recognized that Defendant A lent money to Defendant A (the actual user is D) and made the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case to secure this (the actual user is D). Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the facts established prior to the determination of the claim on the extinction of prescription, it is reasonable to view that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was in a state that can have been exercised on December 31, 1996, which is the registration payment date, at the latest, from the time of the lapse of the statute of limitations. Since it is apparent that the ten-year period has elapsed thereafter, the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security of this case shall be secured.