1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the District Court with respect to the amount of 2,215 square meters in both weeks to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The deceased D (the deceased on March 3, 201, hereinafter “the deceased”) borrowed money from the Defendant on June 25, 1991 (hereinafter “the borrowed money”) and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage”) of the deceased and the deceased and the mortgagee with the Defendant on July 1, 1991 as to the land of this case (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) with the Government Registry of the District Court of the Gu District on July 1, 1991, No. 26441, the maximum debt amount of the Defendant was KRW 60,00,000, and the debtor completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage of the deceased and the mortgagee with the Defendant.

B. After that, E completed the registration of transfer of ownership for one-half of the land in this case’s transfer for one-half of the shares due to a Government Registry of the District District Court No. 94863 on November 19, 199, which was received as of November 1, 1999; F completed the registration of transfer for one-half of the land in this case’s transfer for reasons of sale as of March 28, 200 by the same registry office No. 23356 on March 28, 200, which was received as of March 13, 200; and the Plaintiff, children of the deceased, completed the registration of transfer for each of the above shares due to sale as of August 14, 2009 by the same registry office No. 79185 on August 5, 209.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, each of Gap evidence 2, witness G's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant’s claim for the loan of this case against the Deceased, which is the secured claim for the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case, shall be deemed to have expired after the lapse of ten years from June 25, 191, and the period of ten years from June 25, 2001. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case

B. As to this, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that, at any time, the extinctive prescription was interrupted by accepting an obligation, such as promising the Defendant to repay the borrowed amount, etc., or that the Deceased renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription on April 12, 2011.

(b).