1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to D:
A. Defendant A is the registry office of the Incheon District Court on July 23, 1990.
1. Claim against the defendant A;
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(Provided, That this is limited to the case with respect to the defendant).
Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for a judgment of deemed confession.
2. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C
A. The plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement against D and E, as shown in the attached Form No. 1.
(2) On April 18, 191, D, with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 18, 1991, in order to secure the above loan obligation by borrowing KRW 11 million from Defendant B as of April 18, 1992 due date, as of April 18, 1992, as to each of the real estate in the separate sheet owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, such as the entry in the port, was completed.
D on March 30, 1993 regarding the instant real property, the ground for the claim No. 2. A of the attached Form No. 2.
The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage mentioned in the port was completed.
(3) At present, D is insolvent, and the Plaintiff, as the instant lawsuit, sought to cancel the registration of establishment of a creditor's subrogation right against the Defendants by exercising the right of subrogation on the basis of the above claim for reimbursement against D, and around May 11, 2016, notified D of the exercise of the right of subrogation on the basis of the above claim for reimbursement against D and issued notification to D on the following day.
[Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 and 2 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
B. (1) The Plaintiff, as to whether there was a false conspiracy with Defendant B and C, was conspired with Defendant D and completed the registration of establishment of a new establishment of each of the above businesses. Thus, the Plaintiff alleged that the registration of establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of each of the above businesses is null and void. However, each of the evidence of this case alone is insufficient to recognize it,
(2) Whether the extinctive prescription expires (A) the foregoing right to collateral security established in the future of Defendant C may be under circumstances to the health care unit, and the defendant C may be under circumstances to the same birth E and the D couple with whom the form of punishment is difficult.