1. The defendant shall accept on August 19, 200, the registration office of the Daegu District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty B on the claim for the acquisition amount of KRW 8,000,000,000 with the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Gaso61924, and sentenced that “Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff 16% per annum from September 7, 200 to October 6, 200, and 22% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive.

B. Meanwhile, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) completed on August 19, 200 by the registration office of the Daegu District Court as the Defendant of the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million, the debtor C, and the mortgagee, as the Defendant, was completed.

C. B is the instant real estate in an amount equivalent to KRW 49 million at the market price at the time of the closing of argument in the instant case. 34,278,574 won (based on August 17, 2015, KRW 26,278,574) with positive property at the time of the closing of argument in the instant case, as the instant obligation to acquire the instant amount equivalent to KRW 34,278,574 (based on August 17, 2015, KRW 26,278,574) with positive property, and the obligation is excessive.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the Korea Federation of Banks, the result of each inquiry of the fact, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case is false or extinguished by prescription after the lapse of ten years from August 19, 2000 when the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case was completed, the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case in subrogation of B in order to preserve the secured debt of this case

B. Even if the secured debt in the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case actually existed, ten years, which is the extinctive prescription period of civil claims, from August 19, 2000 when the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case was completed.