1. C:

A. Defendant A shall receive the registration office of Gwangju District Court on February 20, 1997 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a monetary creditor against C, and the defendant B was married with C on April 19, 1971, but was married with C on April 27, 1998, and the defendant A was a partner of the defendant B.

On April 208, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Gwangju District Court 2008Gaso102096, seeking payment of 1.5 million won and damages for delay from November 1, 1997. The above court rendered a judgment ordering payment of the above money on October 30, 2008, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

C From 1981 to 1981, each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the land in this case, and the building listed in paragraph (2) as the building in this case) is owned by Defendant A. On February 20, 1997, Defendant A entered into a mortgage agreement with respect to the land and building in this case with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million, and on the same day, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed under Defendant A’s name.

C On May 1, 1998, between Defendant B and Defendant B, entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with respect to the instant building by setting the term of 20 million won from May 1, 1998 to April 30, 200, and made a registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis under Defendant B’s name on May 15, 1998.

At present C is in excess of obligations.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff asserted that the claim against the Defendant A was based on the establishment of the secured claim, and that the mortgage contract between C and the Defendant, which caused the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant as to the land and building of this case, was made without the establishment of the secured claim, was based on the intention of false agreement, and that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant A was cancelled in subrogation of C.

In addition, the plaintiff argues that the claim should be cancelled on the ground of the extinction of the prescription of the secured claim is selected.

As to this, Defendant A provided C with approximately KRW 40 million on several occasions, and C's.