1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After filing a lawsuit for the claim for reimbursement against C, etc. and being sentenced to a favorable judgment by the Seoul District Court 98 Ghana65368 and 98 Ghana259538, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the claim for payment of the amount of reimbursement to the Seoul Central District Court for the extension of the extinctive prescription of each of the above claims, and received the decision of performance recommendation on May 16, 2008. The decision became final and conclusive on June 5, 2008.

(208 Ghana1578798).b

Of the Plaintiff’s claim against C, the sum of the principal and interest of the claim for indemnity related to the above Seoul District Court 98 Ghana645368 is KRW 19,779,400 as of September 27, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, on April 23, 2007, C created the instant right to collateral security with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since, although the instant mortgage does not have the secured claim, in collusion with the Defendant and C completed the registration of the establishment of the said collateral, the registration of the establishment of the said collateral should be cancelled. 2) Even if not, the claim secured by the instant collateral was applied 5 years, which is the extinctive prescription period under the Commercial Act, as commercial bond, and the extinctive prescription has expired.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff, a creditor of C, may request the Defendant to register the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage by subrogation of insolvent C. (B) The Defendant’s assertion 1) as a loan claim with the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, and the Defendant lent C KRW 95 million through KRW 93 million in total on two occasions around around 2004 and around 2006.

2) Since C is not a merchant, the extinctive prescription under the Civil Act should apply to the above loan claims, the extinctive prescription period has not yet expired. 3) Even if the period of extinctive prescription is applied, C continuously approves the above loan obligations until now.

3. The judgment (the existence of the secured debt of this case) is rendered at the first instance court.