1. The defendant shall have jurisdiction over the establishment of the Suwon District Court for each real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On December 8, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of the right to collateral security”) (hereinafter “registration of the right to collateral security”). On December 8, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of the right to collateral security”) with the maximum amount of debt amount under Article 8005, which was received from the Suwon District Court of Suwon Branch on December 8, 2010 on the ground of the contract to establish the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of the right to collateral security”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff paid the full amount of the secured debt, so the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case must be cancelled.

B. According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 1 and 4, the defendant completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on May 19, 2014 on the ground of sale and purchase reservation on May 14, 2014. Han Bank received a decision to voluntarily commence the auction on January 5, 2017 on each of the instant real estate; the defendant subrogated to Han Bank for the plaintiff's obligation 353,52,943 on February 13, 2017; the defendant completed additional registration of transfer on each of the instant real estate on February 28, 2017 on the ground of subrogation of confirmed claim payment on February 13, 2017; the plaintiff refused to receive the amount subrogated by the defendant on May 8, 2017; thus, the registration of the right to claim ownership extinguishment of the instant real estate should be recognized as having been fully repaid by the plaintiff as the obligor and thus, the plaintiff should be fully discharged.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.