1. The defendant shall receive, on November 28, 1996, the defendant's assistance in smuggling from the Changwon District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to B.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on the claim for the acquisition amount under the jurisdiction of the Chuncheon District Court Branch Branch Office 2013da22054, Oct. 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 129,871,43 won and 31,73,872 won among them at the rate of 19% per annum from May 1, 2013 to the date of full payment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On July 22, 1996, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a collateral (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B on November 28, 1996 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the ground of the mortgage contract on July 22, 1996, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 70,000,000, and the debtor B and the mortgagee as the defendant.

(c) B is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a registration of invalidity of cause established by mutual agreement with the Defendant and B for the purpose of evading extinctive prescription or compulsory execution by creditors including the Plaintiff, and thus, should be cancelled.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral of this case was extinguished on July 22, 1996, which was the date of establishing the right to collateral of this case presumed to be the date of establishment, and on July 22, 2006, the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired, which was presumed to be the date of establishing the right to collateral of this case. Thus, the

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1, the Defendant asserts that, as the Plaintiff is merely a general creditor and does not have a direct interest in the extinction of the statute of limitations on the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, the statute of limitations interest cannot be invoked.

However, the extinctive prescription shall expire.