On January 25, 1990, the defendant shall make a registration office of Suwon District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list to Nonparty D.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it can be acknowledged that the facts as indicated in the reasons for the claim are as follows. According to the above facts, the period of extinctive prescription expires on July 1, 2015 when ten years have passed since the date when the right to collateral security of this case was transferred to the defendant from July 1, 2005, the date when the right to collateral security of this case was transferred to the defendant from July 1, 2005. In the event the extinctive prescription expires, the general creditor against the debtor cannot assert the extinctive prescription in his/her own position as the creditor, but he/she may assert the extinctive prescription by subrogation of the debtor to the extent necessary to preserve his/her own claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109500, May 10, 2012). Thus, the plaintiff had already asserted that the right to collateral security of this case against the defendant for the purpose of preserving the right to collateral security of this case.

2. The Defendant alleged that the auction was conducted on each of the instant real estate, but the progress of the auction was not easy, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, when the request for auction was withdrawn, the interruption of the extinctive prescription due to the seizure ceases to exist, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion does not appear to have any reason.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.