A. In Busan District Court Decision 2006Gaso233461 decided August 31, 2006, the above court rendered a ruling that "B et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 18,461,625 won and 7,852,241 won with 35% interest per annum from November 17, 2005 to the date of full payment" and the above ruling became final and conclusive on October 11, 2006.

B. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, such as the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million, the debtor B, and the mortgagee as the defendant, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition against the mortgagee, was completed.

C. B at the time of the closing of the instant argument, is in excess of the obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), fact-finding results to the head of Busan Youngdo, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was reasonable to deem that the right to collateral of this case did not exist or that the secured claim has expired by prescription from the beginning. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust since the Defendant, on July 3, 2002, lent the amount of KRW 50 million to B on July 3, 2002, as the interest rate of KRW 60,000 per month, and the due date of payment on July 3, 2005. The Plaintiff completed the instant right to collateral of this case in order to secure the Defendant’s obligation to pay the above borrowed principal and interest.

B. Determination 1: (a) the maximum amount of the debt to be secured is set and the determination of the debt is a mortgage that is set up by reserving the determination of the debt in the future; (b) there is a legal act establishing the secured debt of the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral; and (c) whether there was a legal act establishing the secured debt