1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant and B agreed to pay approximately nine million won as the settlement amount to the Defendant in the process of settling the accounts around 1998 when the Defendant and B engaged in a memorial business.

B. B on February 23, 1998, pursuant to the agreement under the preceding paragraph, completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the instant real estate by the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 9.9 million, B, and the Defendant’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”).

C. On June 24, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against B, etc. with the Seo-gu District Court Branch of Seo-gu District Court (2008Gadan270), and on June 24, 2008, the above court rendered a judgment that “B, etc. jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 547,76,884 and KRW 262,952,375 per annum from November 16, 2001 to May 29, 2008, and KRW 27% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

B is a debt excess situation.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 (including each number), the result of the response of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Chairman of the Federation of Banks of this Court to the Chairman of the Federation of Banks of this Court, the results of the inquiry and reply of the fact to the Director of Nutrition

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has expired by prescription around February 23, 2008 after the lapse of ten years from February 23, 1998.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement B the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case, except in special circumstances

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion was as follows: (a) B approved the debt before the completion of the statute of limitations on the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security; and (b)

B. The purport that the recognition of an obligation as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription recognizes the existence of a right against a person who is a party to the extinctive prescription benefit, who is a party to the claim, would lose the right.