1. The defendant shall receive on February 25, 2003 from Nonparty B the first branch court of Chuncheon District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2000 to 2002, the Defendant lent a total of KRW 30 million to B on several occasions, and made a registration of creation of a collateral (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by B as the maximum debt amount, No. 2697, Feb. 25, 2003, the Chuncheon District Court, the 2697, received on February 25, 2003.

B. Meanwhile, although B obtained a credit card from the Plaintiff, it did not pay the amount of the credit card.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on August 25, 201 by filing a credit card use payment lawsuit with the Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Da3356, and rendered a favorable judgment on August 25, 2011, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(c) B is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant’s loan claim against B, which is the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, has expired ten years after the expiration of ten years from February 25, 2003, which is the contract date of the instant right to collateral security, unless there are special circumstances.

As such, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled, and as long as B does not seek the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case, the plaintiff, the creditor of this case, can seek procedures for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case

I would like to say.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the period of repayment of the loan claim against B was February 25, 2008, and that the extinctive prescription has not yet expired, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.