1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 24, 199, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with C on the land listed in the separate list owned by the non-party company (hereinafter “non-party company”) with respect to the land indicated in the separate list owned by the non-party company (hereinafter “the land of this case”). On August 25, 1999, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring land of this case”) under the Defendant’s name.

B. On August 25, 199, the non-party company issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 110,000,000 for face value, and the due date for payment, and delivered it to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On November 23, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she acquired ownership from the non-party company on the ground of payment in kind, and agreed to cancel the limited real right established on the above real estate, such as the registration of establishment of the neighboring land of this case.

On the other hand, the secured debt of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case is a debt on the notarial deed of the above promissory note, and since the above secured debt has expired, the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case against the defendant in subrogation of the insolvent

B. First of all, as to whether the secured claim in the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case is limited to the bonds on the notarial deed of the said Promissory Notes and whether the extinctive prescription of the said bonds has expired, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it,

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the defendant is entitled to a loan claim of KRW 90 million against the non-party company prior to the completion of the registration of the establishment of the relocation of this case, and a claim for reimbursement of KRW 99,405,787 according to the loan guarantee contract dated May 19, 197.