1. The defendant received on December 28, 2004 from the Jeju District Court as to each real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 28, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim for indemnity against Nonparty B with Jeju District Court Decision 2007Kadan20562, and sentenced that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 72,100,475 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 10% per annum from August 13, 2005 to October 30, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2008.

B. On December 28, 2004, B borrowed KRW 70 million from the Defendant and concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant as to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet in order to secure the obligation to repay the above borrowed amount, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage with each maximum debt amount of KRW 70 million (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-1, 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, barring any special circumstance, the secured debt of the Defendant’s establishment registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage against B was ten years since the date of its establishment (Article 166(1) of the Civil Act, and non-fixed bonds) and the extinctive prescription was completed on December 28, 2014, and the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage also expired pursuant to Article 369 of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance.

I would like to say.

Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the cancellation of the registration of creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case by subrogation as creditor B, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case by subrogation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da27998, Feb. 9, 196).

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.