1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the defendant in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the plaintiff makes an additional determination as to the argument in the appellate court under paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable to

The summary of the judgment is as follows: (a) there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant succeeded to or acquired the secured obligation of the registration of the instant collateral by purchasing the real estate listed in the attached list, and thus, (b) the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted; and (c) the secured obligation of the registration of the instant collateral security has expired by prescription; and (d)

2. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s argument at the appellate court

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion lent KRW 62 million to B on September 2002, before lending KRW 50 million to B, and E drafted a cash custody certificate of KRW 70 million on August 2, 2006, with regard to the debt of KRW 62 million on August 2, 2006.

E Of 100 million won paid to the Plaintiff around November 2007, 83 million won was for the repayment of the above debt, and the remainder of 17 million won was for the repayment of the secured debt of this case upon B’s request.

Accordingly, the statute of limitations for the secured obligation of the registration of the instant collateral security was suspended.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 62 million to B on or around September 2002, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

In full view of the purport of evidence No. 24-1 and No. 4, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 70 million to E based on the cash custody certificate as of August 2, 2006 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 36% per annum, and received a favorable judgment.

E The amount of KRW 100 million paid to the Plaintiff shall be deemed the amount of reimbursement according to the judgment.