1. The Defendant shall provide to B (C on the register) with machinery, such as Changwon District Court Dao support, etc. with respect to the size of 198 square meters per 198 square meters per Dong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B With respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of 1998 square meters prior to Chungcheongnam-gun, Chang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Changwon District Court (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”), the Defendant was issued with the receipt of No. 7852 on June 16, 2005, such as Changwon-gun, Changwon District Court

31. The establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed on the basis of the contract;

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B against the Seogu District Court Decision 2010Kadan8550 for the claim for the takeover amount.

On June 9, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 49,514,859 and KRW 24,42,59 with interest of KRW 17% per annum from March 3, 2010 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 21, 2010.

C. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred the said claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the said fact to B around April 3, 2018.

B A on August 12, 1982, married with E on August 12, 1982, but reported divorce on June 23, 2005.

E. B’s small property exceeds the positive property.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and fact-finding with respect to Daegu Metropolitan City

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the need for preservation claims and preservation, the Plaintiff’s successor has a claim against B with respect to which the Plaintiff succeeded, and as the Plaintiff’s successor is insolvent, the Intervenor’s right to cancel the instant right to collateral security against the Defendant is recognized as the need for preservation on behalf of the Plaintiff’s successor.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the existence of the duty to cancel the instant right to collateral security asserts that “The instant right to collateral security has no secured claim, and even if there exists a secured claim, the period of extinctive prescription has expired, so the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled.”

For this, the defendant secured the claim for return of KRW 18,00,000 which was set on December 31, 2005 and lent to B by December 31, 2005.