1. The defendant shall register to B the Daegu District Court Pohang Port Branch on the real estate stated in the attached list, and on May 17, 2005.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff (formerly: EL Card Co., Ltd.) filed a lawsuit claiming the use of credit cards against B, who did not pay the credit card fees, and that "B shall pay to the plaintiff 3,519,254 won and 3,367,680 won which are calculated by the rate of 29% per annum from March 24, 2006 to the date of full payment." The plaintiff (formerly: EL Card Co., Ltd.) received a favorable judgment on May 2, 2007, and the above judgment was finalized on May 23, 203.

B. On the other hand, on May 17, 2005, B filed a registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with the Defendant, who is one of the parties, as to the real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as to the real estate as indicated in the attached list, and the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with the Daegu District Court No. 44582, May 17, 2005 as the receipt of the attached list No.

C. B has no particular property except for the apartment of this case (10 million won at the market price), while the Plaintiff bears the obligation based on the final and conclusive judgment of this case.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On the grounds as indicated in paragraphs (1) and (b) of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the right to collateral security of this case established in the name of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the non-sufficient B is to seek cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case. (A) The Defendant actually established the right to collateral security of this case on the basis of the best claim by false conspiracy with the Defendant

B) Even if the secured claim actually exists, the right was extinguished due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription period. (2) The Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds as set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) below. (A) The Defendant lent KRW 1.2 million to B on February 1, 2001, and ② the obligation to B on September 16, 2002 to B on September 16, 2002 (1.960,000,000,000 won to the obligor on January 20, 2004).