1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Upon the claim of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the defendant answers C in the East Sea.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B against the Seoul Southern District Court No. 2014 Ghana431275, and the said court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 20,928,334 won and 9,711,263 won with interest of 17% per annum from January 14, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant judgment claim”). (b)

On January 26, 2018, when the lawsuit of this case is pending, the Plaintiff transferred the instant claim against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor delegated the authority to notify the transfer from the Plaintiff, and notified the said assignment to B at that time.

C. On June 14, 200, B filed a registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the land of 820 square meters in the Dong-si, Dong-si, Dong-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was owned by the Defendant, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 120,00,000, and with the obligor D.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). D.

B did not have any particular property other than the instant real estate, and during the period from 2002 to 2017, the instant real estate was seized by Ansan-si, National Health Insurance Corporation, Ulsan-gun, Geumcheon-si, Geumcheon-si, and Dong-si.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit since the plaintiff transferred the claim of this case to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and notified the claim of this case.

3. Determination on the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserts that the registration of establishment of the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled as the ground for invalidation because there is no secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, and that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has expired due to the expiration of extinctive prescription.

As to this, the defendant shall be D.