1. The defendant shall receive on August 10, 191 from the Chuncheon District Court, the East Sea Registry on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Cheongsung Jae-in Co., Ltd. and B for the claim for reimbursement against the Seoul Central District Court 2009Gaso2348423. On April 22, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Seoul Central District Court to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay of KRW 2,723,887 and KRW 1,420,01 among them jointly and severally to the Plaintiff.

The above judgment was finalized on May 19, 2010.

B. B completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, which is one’s own ownership, by the Chuncheon District Court, the East Sea Registry of the Chuncheon District Court, No. 8290, Aug. 10, 1991.

C. B is in excess of the obligation due to the closing date of the instant argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 4-3, Evidence Nos. 1 to 4-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the claim secured by the right to collateral security of this case expired after the lapse of 10 years from August 10, 1991, which completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security of this case, barring special circumstances, and the Plaintiff, a creditor of B, can seek the cancellation of the right to collateral security of this case by subrogation, who is insolvent.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that C, as the debtor, had suspended prescription by approving the debt, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the statement of Eul No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 2, C may recognize the fact that on May 13, 2014, after the extinctive prescription of the claim secured by the right to collateral security of this case, C has been completed, it can be deemed that C has waived the prescription benefit.

However, the waiver of the prescription benefit is merely a relative effect, and the defendant cannot claim the waiver of the prescription benefit against the plaintiff. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is justified.