1. As to the real estate indicated in the attachment No. B:

A. Defendant Central Special Control Co., Ltd.

1. Claim against the defendant Southern District Corporation

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against Defendant Central Special Control Area Corporation and A;

A. According to the evidence No. 1 to No. 3, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty B on the claim for reimbursement against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009 Ghana1479270. On April 17, 2009, the Plaintiff rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 2,752,067 won and 1,500,000 won out of the above amount at the rate of 21% per annum from November 16, 1998 to the date of full payment.” The said decision was finalized on May 9, 2009. Meanwhile, the real estate indicated in the attached real estate was registered for each of the Defendants as indicated in the attached real estate’s order.

B. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Article 1-A of the Disposition between B and Defendant Central Special Control Center, and A.

paragraphs 1 and 2.

It is reasonable to view that the secured obligation following the registration of creation of each collateral set out in the port was completed on February 24, 1992 and August 8, 1994, and that the period of prescription has expired on or around February 24, 2002 and August 8, 2004, each of which was ten years thereafter since the registration of creation was completed. Thus, each of the above mortgage establishment registration units became null and void due to the appendant nature of the security right, and thus, the defendant central special control branch corporation, and A, barring any special circumstance, are liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment of each collateral set out in the above lease.

As to this, the above Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations for the secured obligation has been suspended, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

C. Accordingly, the plaintiff's central special restraint area corporation and the plaintiff's claim against A is justified.