1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall have such machinery as the Jeonju District Court’s branch branch office and Eup.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 1988, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on April 26, 1986, with respect to 1,111 square meters and E preceding 1,312 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. In around 1989, the Plaintiff borrowed nine million won from Defendant B. To secure this, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”) with the Jeonju District Court No. 11436, Apr. 26, 1989, which was received on April 26, 1989, with respect to each of the instant real estate as the Defendant B and the maximum debt amount, nine million won, and the debtor, respectively.

C. On June 8, 2015, Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “Defendant Agricultural Cooperative”) issued a seizure and collection order of collateral security claims against Defendant B based on an executory ruling of the claim for reimbursement amount against Jeonju District Court 2014Gaga2459, Jeonju District Court 2015, Jeonju District Court 2015. On the same day, it completed the registration of seizure of collateral security claims against collateral security claims against Defendant B, under Article 14632, such as the above court’s machinery receipt.

[Ground of recognition as to Defendant B] Article 208(3)3 (a) of the Civil Procedure Act [based on recognition as to Defendant Nonghyup] (based on service by public notice) does not dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the ten-year extinctive prescription is applied to the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow KRW 9 million against Defendant B pursuant to Article 162 of the Civil Act. Since it is apparent that the ten-year prescription has lapsed from April 18, 1989, the date of borrowing the loan, and therefore, the above loan obligation has expired by the extinctive prescription on April 18, 199.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the secured debt of the instant mortgage does not exist due to the extinction of the secured debt, so the instant mortgage also ceased to exist according to the appendant nature, and the attachment of the instant mortgage by Defendant Nonghyup.