1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the real estate stated in the attached Form C, the administrator of inherited property C in Defendant B’s trust.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 23, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of Lanwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site Costs as to the real estate indicated in the attached list, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 125 million as of May 23, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff as the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

The deceased B died on July 23, 2013, and the Attorney C (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant C") of the Defendant Net C was appointed as an administrator of inherited property.

C. On May 11, 2017, Defendant D completed the registration of provisional attachment on the instant real estate on May 16, 2017, upon receipt of a provisional attachment order by Defendant C as the court 2017Kadan5666, with a claim amounting to KRW 100 million for loans to Defendant C.

(hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) D.

On October 26, 2017, Defendant D received a request for auction concerning the instant real estate upon receipt of a seizure and collection order, and issued a request for the auction of the instant real estate, which was transferred to a provisional seizure as the main seizure by this court under this court’s 2017TT 4312, and received a voluntary decision on the commencement of auction from this court E on November 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. A. Around May 2007, the deceased F, the Plaintiff’s spouse, received 30 million won of rice payment from the deceased B as advance payment, and established the instant mortgage to the deceased B. However, prior to September 2007, the secured debt was fully repaid upon payment of rice to the deceased B.

Even if reimbursement is not recognized, the period of extinctive prescription has expired.

Defendant D asserted that the prescription has been interrupted, but in the case of provisional seizure of claims, the interruption of prescription under Article 168 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act is not effective against a debtor’s claim against a third-party debtor, and only the effect of the peremptory notice on May 15, 2017, delivered to the third-party debtor, which was served on the Plaintiff, was served on the Plaintiff on November 22, 2017 when six months have elapsed since the decision to commence the auction on the instant real estate was served