1. The defendant shall accept the registration of Jeju District Court and July 31, 2003 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to B.

1. Case summary

A. On July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff, as an insurer which concluded a guarantee insurance contract with B, subrogated 30 million won which was not repaid to the Nowon-in Fisheries Co., Ltd.

B. The registration of Jeju District Court, No. 65026, Jul. 31, 2003, concerning the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), was completed by the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of the debtor B, the amount of credit of KRW 87 million due to the same mortgage contract, and the due date of payment of KRW 31, Jul. 31, 2004, and the interest rate of 8% per annum (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of the instant real estate”).

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, Gap 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant: (a) acquired the claim by false indication in collusion with B; and (b) completed the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage in order to secure it; (c) the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage is invalid when there is no secured debt. Even if the secured debt exists in the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage, the said credit expired by the prescription; (d) according to the entries in Eul-2 and Eul-4 (including each number), and the witness’s witness’s testimony, the fact that the Defendant deposited cash without direct transfer to B and remitted it to B’s account (in the case of separate preparation of the withdrawal statement and the remittance statement, it shall be treated as cash withdrawal and remittance, as well as by the account transfer); and (e) even if the loan was not repaid once, the fact alone is insufficient to deny the existence of the secured debt stated in the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4 (the evidence with a serial number includes a serial number), and witness Eul's witness Eul's partial testimony, the defendant's defendant is about 7 million won on June 7, 2002, and October 25, 2002.