1. The defendant on November 23, 2006, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, the Changwon District Court was closely supported by the defendant.

Facts of recognition

On December 4, 200, Cho Ho Bank Co., Ltd. entered into a loan agreement with B on December 4, 200 with a loan limit of KRW 6,00,000.

On June 28, 2013, Choung Bank Co., Ltd. transferred the claim under the above loan agreement with the Plaintiff (as of May 31, 2013, the principal amount of KRW 3,90,940,940, interest interest interest interest, KRW 4,835,925) to the Plaintiff, and notified the transfer to B, and around that time, the above notification was delivered to B.

As of June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff’s claim against B is the principal amount of KRW 3,990,940, and interest in arrears of KRW 7,528,224, and KRW 11,519,164.

B on November 23, 2006, KRW 40,000,00 from the Defendant was determined as due date until January 17, 2007, and thereafter, in order to secure this, the Defendant established a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the “provisional registration of this case”) as to each real estate listed in the attached list as stated in the attached list.

B is currently insolvent.

【The grounds for recognition” Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), 1, 1, and 40,000 won as to the grounds for the claim of the witness B’s testimony and the entire purport of the pleading. The provisional registration of this case is to secure the obligation of borrowed money of KRW 40,00,000 against the Defendant of this case. The above obligation of borrowed money has already expired on January 17, 2007 after ten years from the due date.

Therefore, on January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of a loan against B, can seek implementation of the cancellation registration procedure based on the completion of extinctive prescription of the secured debt of this case on the provisional registration of this case by subrogation of the Defendant, who is insolvent B.

The defendant asserts that the completion of extinctive prescription has been interrupted since he/she approved B's debt prior to the expiration of extinctive prescription of the loan debt.

In addition to the testimony that the above witness and the defendant have long-standing relationship, and that B has approved the defendant's oral obligation, although there is evidence corresponding to this, it is not the testimony that the above witness and the defendant have acknowledged the defendant's obligation.