1. The defendant on June 19, 2007, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty C, the Changwon District Court Msan Branch.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty C owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet from August 24, 2007 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On the other hand, on June 19, 2007, prior to C’s acquisition of ownership of the instant real estate on June 19, 2007, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on the basis of a contract concluded on June 19, 2007, based on the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000, the debtor D (at the time), the mortgagee of the instant real estate, and the mortgagee of the mortgage.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

The Plaintiff loaned to C interest of KRW 30,00,000 per annum on October 26, 2016, and KRW 20,000 per annum on April 25, 2017, and KRW 20,000 on December 9, 2016, annually interest rate of KRW 30,000 per annum on December 9, 2016, and KRW 10,000 on December 9, 2017, ③ interest rate of KRW 25,00 per annum on May 15, 2017, and due date of repayment on December 25, 2017.

The Plaintiff’s claim against C is KRW 50,00,00 and ① interest amounting to KRW 8,890,141 from October 26, 2016 to April 19, 2018, which is the date of the filing of the lawsuit in this case; ② interest amounting to KRW 8,168,830, and ③ interest amounting to KRW 8,168,830 from December 9, 2016 to April 19, 2018; ③ interest amounting to KRW 2,328,767 from May 15, 2017 to April 19, 2018 is interest amounting to KRW 19,387,738.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 2 evidence (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff did not exercise the right to claim cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage in subrogation of the Defendant, despite the lapse of the extinctive prescription due to the obligor C’s insolvency’s extinction of the secured obligation of the instant real estate, which was completed by the obligor C, one of its own possession.

In regard to this, the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff’s obligee against C, may assert the defense that C was not insolvent, and further, the Plaintiff did not constitute a person who received direct benefit from the extinction of prescription, and thus, may invoke the extinction of prescription.