1. The defendant, on August 192, 192, filed with the Daegu District Court in relation to the 1,235 square meters of forest land C in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 2015, the Busan District Court Decision 2014Da252234 decided that “B shall jointly pay KRW 35,022,883 and delay damages together with Samcheon Coal Co., Ltd.” was finalized on April 15, 2015.

B. As to the size of 1235 square meters of forest land in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Daejeon District Court, which owned on August 18, 1992, the registration of creation of a mortgage, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, the debtor B, and the defendant of the right to collateral security (the defendant and B are dead money) had been completed as of the 6546 square meters of forest forest land in the Gyeongbuk-gun, the

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) C.

B is insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) Determination on the cause of the claim 1) The plaintiff's claim was recognized as Eul, and even though Eul is insolvent, the defendant did not seek the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case. Thus, the preservation of creditor subrogation lawsuit is recognized. 2) It is presumed that the secured debt of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case was incurred on August 18, 1992, and that the extinctive prescription has run from around that time is not disputed by the defendant. Thus, the secured debt of this case was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription from around August 18, 1992 to around October 18, 2002.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

B. The Defendant’s assertion argues that “B continues to exist as the secured claim for the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case until now.”

In light of the fact that the defendant and the witness B testified to the purport that it conforms to the defendant's above argument, the witness B's testimony cannot be easily believed, and there is no other evidence to prove the fact that the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable, since there is no other evidence to prove the fact that the witness B testified to the purport that it corresponds to the defendant's above argument.