The defendant shall make on May 8, 2006, the Namyang District Court of Jungyang District with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

A completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 14, 2008 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet on August 22, 2008. The above real estate was completed by the registration of ownership transfer based on sale as of August 14, 2008. The registration of ownership transfer based on the mortgagee, the debtor D, the maximum debt amount of which is 65,500,000 won, Namyang-ju registry office of May 8, 2006 (hereinafter “instant establishment registration”) was completed. A filed the instant lawsuit against the defendant on April 1, 2019 on the ground that the secured debt of the instant collective security was extinguished by the prescription period, and the plaintiff died on April 13, 2019, and died on April 13, 2019, the plaintiff succeeded to the waiver of inheritance by other co-inheritors, and the plaintiff did not obtain approval from the parties concerned or may be acknowledged as being 1 to 30 percent of the entire pleadings.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was determined and accrued, barring any special circumstance, and thus, on May 8, 2006, the date of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage, which was the date of the expiration of the statute of limitations, deemed on May 8, 2006, which was the date of the expiration of the statute of limitations,

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security of this case to the plaintiff who inherited real estate listed in the attached list.

In this regard, the defendant paid KRW 21,00,000 as a surety to the defendant around 2008 as a check, and thus, the defendant constitutes a partial repayment of the secured debt and the approval of the debt shall be deemed as the acceptance of the debt, and even if it cannot be deemed as the acceptance of the debt.

Even if so, it is alleged that the Defendant asserted that the secured debt of the instant case was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription period is contrary to the good faith principle.

The defendant at around 2008.