1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee contract with B to guarantee the principal and interest of loan of KRW 110 million within the limit of KRW 93.5 million in receiving loan from a single bank.

B. On April 15, 2016, B concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) with the Defendant on April 15, 2016, when more than active property was more than active property than the debt. On April 18, 2016, B concluded a mortgage registration agreement with the Defendant on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”). On April 18, 2016, the Jeonju District Court rendered the Defendant a registration of establishment of each of the real estates B, the mortgagee, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount

C. A around October 20, 2016, around October 20, B01, the principal of the loan owed to Han Bank was overdue, and the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 47,269,716 to Han Bank on October 27, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed an application with B for a payment order claiming reimbursement of the above subrogated amount. Accordingly, the payment order was finalized to provide the Plaintiff with payment order of KRW 46,842,842 and KRW 46,842,726 as to KRW 10% per annum from October 27, 2016 to January 13, 2017, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

(Order for Payment dated November 1, 2016 to the Changwon District Court 2016. [The grounds for recognition] A, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number of branches if there is a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination

A. The establishment B entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant on April 15, 2016 with respect to each of the instant real estate in excess of the obligation, and made a registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on April 18, 2016.

At the time of concluding the aforementioned mortgage contract, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B was not yet occurred, but there was a legal relationship which is the basis of establishing the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B, and it is highly probable that the claim for indemnity will occur in the near future.