1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to B, the defendant shall make a single registry office for the Cheongju District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to B.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was established on December 30, 1983, and B was appointed as the representative director of C on March 18, 1993.

B. C was suspended from check account transactions on June 27, 1994 and discontinued on the same day.

The Defendant received, from B on the same day, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) as the Cheongju District Court No. 3997, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000, and the debtor B’s establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”).

C. As indicated in the separate sheet No. 3. Paragraph 3. As to B, the Plaintiff has a total of KRW 100,614,940, including the resident tax to be assessed on global income for 1993 (hereinafter “instant global income tax”) and the total of seven claims, including resident tax and automobile tax (hereinafter “each tax claim of this case”).

On April 29, 2000, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government completed the seizure registration for the disposition of arrears on each of the real estate of this case in order to collect each of the tax claims of this case based on the authority to impose and collect the market price delegated by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff recovered the right to collect each taxation claim of this case from Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government based on the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 4, 9, 12, 14, 15 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s claim of this case prior to the merits was to exercise the Plaintiff’s right against the Defendant in subrogation of B, a creditor holding each of the instant taxation claims against B.

However, all of the taxes of this case are taxes attributed to the year 193 and the year 1994 was imposed, and the extinctive prescription of each of the above taxation claims has expired in around 1999.