1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to B, the Defendant shall register with the Gwangju District Court wooden Branch Branch, and on July 20, 1998.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order seeking the payment of the acquisition amount under the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016 tea 4731.

On January 26, 2016, the above court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount of KRW 8,713,294 and KRW 3,578,087 each year from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment. The above payment order was finalized on April 15, 2016.

B. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. B (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on July 18, 1998, which was concluded on July 18, 1998 with respect to the registration of the YY branch of the Gwangju District Court and the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million, the debtor, B, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the Defendant of the right to collateral security, and the grounds for registration.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

On the other hand, B has no particular property other than the instant real estate, and it is insolvent because B bears a large number of debts in addition to the Plaintiff’s debts.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, fact inquiry results against the Court Administration Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the determination of the cause of the claim. Since there is no evidence to prove that the time limit for the secured claim of the instant right to collateral of this case has been fixed, the above claim shall be deemed a claim with no fixed time limit, and since a claim with no fixed time limit may be exercised from the time of its establishment, the extinctive prescription shall also run from that time.

Therefore, the above claim is deemed to have been able to exercise the right from July 20, 1998, which was at least the date of the establishment of the right to collateral security, and as long as the ten years have passed thereafter, it is apparent that the above claim had already been extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription on July 20, 2008, which was before the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the plaintiff who subrogated B as the creditor of insolvent B.