1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for the part concerning the dismissal or deletion as set forth in paragraph (2) below and the part concerning the matters alleged by the Plaintiff as the reason for appeal as set forth in paragraph (3) below. Thus, this Court cited it as it is, under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. (a) On the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, the part that was used or deleted is as follows: (b) whether the secured debt has been extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription is “C. Whether the secured debt has been extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription or not.”

(b) The judgment of the court of first instance No. 6, No. 2, and 4

3.(c)

2) The paragraph (2) shall consist of the following parts:

② The third acquisitor is merely responsible for the property liability like the surety and does not bear the obligation to the obligee, so it is reasonable to view that the interruption of the extinctive prescription against the principal obligor extends to the third acquisitor. (c) On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the interruption of prescription against the principal obligor under Article 40 of the Civil Code Section 440 of the third party Civil Code is effective against the surety.

The first instance judgment "which is prescribed in the Court"

3.(c)

2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion that there is no secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, the Plaintiff and C purchased the entire real estate before subdivision in KRW 1.2 billion from the date of the registration of establishment of the instant mortgage and approximately two years before subdivision. Of them, C’s shares are only 1/5, but also 1/5 shares.