1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 2, 1985 with respect to the portion of 1/4 of the land of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”) and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 12, 2002 with respect to the portion of 3/4 of the land before the said subdivision.

B. On the other hand, on April 1, 1992, E completed the registration of establishment of the first place of the instant land in April 1, 1992 as to E’s shares (1/4 shares) among the land before the instant partition, and on February 5, 2003, Defendant C completed the registration of establishment of the second place of the instant land in the future.

C. After that, through the case of partition of co-owned property, etc. by the Incheon District Court 2002Gadan20383, the land before the division was divided into Dand 716.8m2, Nov. 21, 2003, and hereinafter “the land after the division of this case”) and Fand 238.9m23m2 (E in the future, November 21, 2003). The registration of creation of the ownership of the 12m2 after the division of this case was completed on the land after the division of this case. [The fact that there is no ground for recognition, the entry of Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff is not an obligor of the instant collateral security, but also a surety, each of the above collateral security registered on the land after the division of the instant case should be cancelled by the registration of invalidity.

(b) household affairs not.

Even if the secured debt in the first place registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case has expired by prescription, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case must be cancelled.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff's above A.

As to the assertion, security rights, such as the right to collateral security established on the shares of Gap among the real estate owned by Eul and Eul, such as the right to collateral security established on the shares of Eul, shall continue to exist on the whole co-owned property according to the previous shares ratio, and shall not be naturally concentrated on the part divided in the future Gap

(Supreme Court Decision 88Meu24868 delivered on August 8, 1989). Accordingly, even though the Plaintiff had the right to collateral security of this case, the Plaintiff’s collateral security of this case was established.