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 Plaintiff filed a payment order against B with the purport that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 80,712,925 won and 56,241,00 won among them, calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 2, 2005 to the date of full payment, and 49,480 won for demand procedure expenses,” which was issued by the above court on November 4, 2005. The above payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was finalized on November 21, 2005.

B. On March 17, 1999, No. 2090, Mar. 17, 1999, B completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) on each real estate listed in the separate list owned by Defendant A.

C. Defendant U.S. Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “U.S.”) filed a provisional disposition claiming the prohibition of disposal of the instant right to collateral security against Defendant A on August 25, 2005 by taking the right to claim cancellation of the instant right to claim cancellation of collateral security on the ground that the instant right to collateral security constituted a fraudulent act against the general creditors of this Court under the court No. 2005Kadan6393, and filed a provisional disposition claiming prohibition of disposal of the instant right to collateral security, and completed the registration of the entry on August 26, 2005.

As of the closing date of the instant case, B is in insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the cause of the claim;

A. B did not bear the obligation against Defendant A but completed the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the mortgage of this case to Defendant A for the purpose of evading the obligation, which is null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

B. Even if B bears the obligation against the Defendant, the Defendant A was subject to the lapse of ten years from March 17, 1999, which entered into the mortgage contract of this case.