1. The registration of the vice branch court of the Incheon District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff and the receipt of November 19, 192.

1. In addition to the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff borrowed five million won from the deceased E on Nov. 17, 1992 (hereinafter "the deceased") and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of five million won, such as the claim No. 1, in the future of the deceased on Nov. 19, 192 (hereinafter "registration of creation of a mortgage over the present case"), the plaintiff discharged four million won out of the above loan to the deceased on Oct. 11, 1993, the deceased died on Jan. 31, 1994, and the Selection C is recognized as the deceased's heir as the deceased's heir.

According to the above facts of recognition, loans owed by the deceased against the deceased were extinguished after the lapse of 10 years from October 11, 1993 by the person whose debts were approved by the plaintiff due to repayment of 4 million won to the deceased. Thus, the defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties are each their inheritance shares among the registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate of this case, which was completed as to the annexed real estate, and the appointed parties C are obligated to perform the registration procedure of cancellation as to the 3/7 shares, and the defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties D are obligated to perform the registration procedure of cancellation as to 2/7 shares, respectively.

2. The Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted that the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was based on the time when the Plaintiff’s economic condition, which was the time limit for repayment, became final and conclusive, and that the time limit was arrived at when the Plaintiff appointed an attorney-at-law and filed the instant lawsuit. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, each claim against the plaintiff's defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is reasonable, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.