1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The establishment registration was completed on July 15, 1995 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. B, the debtor B, the mortgagee, the defendant, the maximum debt amount, 60 million won, and the establishment registration was completed on July 15, 1995 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. B, the debtor, the mortgagee, the defendant, the maximum debt amount, 50 million won, and the establishment registration was completed on July 15, 1995.

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

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking indemnity against C and B with the Daegu District Court Decision 201Ga52038, Nov. 10, 201, “C Co., Ltd and B jointly and severally with the Plaintiff 65,961,797 won and 63,343,606 won among them, 17% per annum from May 10, 1996 to January 31, 198; 25% per annum from the following day to August 31, 1998; 20% per annum from the next day to December 31, 1998; 18% per annum from the next day to July 7, 2001; and 25% per annum from the next day to October 13, 201; and 16% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the Plaintiff’s assertion was completed by B without any secured debt to the Defendant, and the cause was null and void or ten years have elapsed since the date of registration, and the secured debt was extinguished by prescription.

Therefore, in order to preserve the above indemnity claim against B, B is seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case against the defendant in subrogation of B.

3. The burden of proving the existence of a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009); evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 3-B, No. 6, No. 1, and No. 7-2.