1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, etc. against the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ghana 611460. On December 9, 2013, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation that “B, etc. jointly and severally with the Plaintiff to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 14,547,713 and the amount of KRW 9,907,140 per annum from November 29, 2013 to the date of full payment.” The said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on December 27, 2013.

B. On March 3, 2003, B completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the purport of the claim as the defendant with regard to each real estate stated in the attached list, which was the basis of the contract to establish a contract on March 3, 2003.

(hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage of this case" or "mortgage of this case" is without dispute over the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case (based on recognition), the entries in Gap evidence 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the Plaintiff’s assertion was null and void due to the absence of the secured debt, and even if the secured debt exists, the statute of limitations expired.

Therefore, upon the plaintiff's request by subrogation of insolvent B, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case.

B. According to the existence of the secured claim and the written evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 11 (including the number of branch numbers), and the witness B’s testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant and B determined that the defendant would pay the loan amount of KRW 18 million until March 3, 2003 at the time of the defendant’s request while settling the loan amount of KRW 18 million. In order to secure this, it is recognized that the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case was completed in order to pay the defendant the total amount of KRW 3 million, and that the loan amount of KRW 15 million at the time of the conclusion of the pleadings remains.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured claim of the instant mortgage does not exist is without merit.

(c).