A. Defendant Korea Chain Industry Co., Ltd.

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment deemed to be a confession made in absence (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against the defendant A;

A. The facts of recognition (1) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on May 25, 2005 by filing a claim for reimbursement amount with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Gada14698, and on May 25, 2005, "B shall pay to the plaintiff 10,443,191 won and 6,317,516 won among them, 19% per annum from September 4, 2002 to May 28, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above decision was finalized on June 12, 2005.

(2) As to the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”), B is ordered to Defendant A to do so.

The establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (the debtor B, the creditor A, and the maximum debt amount 100 million won) (hereinafter referred to as the "establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case") entered in the port was completed.

(3) B is currently insolvent.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. (1) The Plaintiff, in collusion with Defendant A and completed the registration of establishment of the establishment of the creation of the instant neighboring area in collusion with Defendant A, so it is alleged as null and void. However, the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to

(2) Whether the statute of limitations has expired or not, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A could exercise its right on February 3, 1995, at least on the date of the registration of the establishment of a new collateral. The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on April 26, 2016, which was ten years after the said lawsuit was filed, is apparent in fact, and thus, the said right to collateral was already extinguished by the statute of limitations.

Therefore, since there is no longer no longer the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security in the name of the Defendant A, the Plaintiff shall be subrogated to B, who is insolvent, in order to preserve the claim for indemnity against B.