1. The defendant shall receive on November 30, 2001, from the Changwon District Court, the real estate stated in the attached list to B.

1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 8 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment with Changwon District Court 2007Gaso5981 by acquiring the loan claim against Eul from the Changwon District Court. On January 24, 2007, the above court rendered a recommendation of performance with the purport that "B shall pay to the plaintiff 2,455,130 won and 2,378,24 won with interest rate of 25% per annum from June 30, 2003 to the day of full payment," and the above decision becomes final and conclusive on February 13, 2007, the defendant lent 30,000 won to B on November 30, 201, as the maximum debt amount of the loan claim No. 300,000 won, which is the debtor, and 300,000 won, 300,000 won, 200 won, 300,7.

In addition, since there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant had set the due date for the above loan claim against B, the above loan claim against the defendant against B can be exercised from the time of its establishment, and the defendant lent KRW 30,000,000 to B as security, and the extinctive prescription is in progress from November 30, 2001 on the date when the establishment registration of the above loan was completed. The fact that ten years have passed thereafter is apparent.

According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s loan claim against B, which is the secured claim of the above right to collateral security, has expired (Article 162(1) of the Civil Act), and accordingly the above right to collateral security has expired (Article 369 of the Civil Act). Thus, the registration of establishment of the above right to collateral security should be cancelled, and the Plaintiff, which is the creditor of B, can seek cancellation of the above right to collateral security against the Defendant

(Article 404(1) main text of the Civil Act). 2. Determination of the defendant's assertion on August 30, 2005 on this issue, the defendant's health is due to brain flasing that occurred on August 30, 2005.