1. The Defendant: (a) on November 4, 2003, on the real estate stated in the attached list to Nonparty B, the Changwon District Court was published and the registry office was held.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on the claim for profit, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap91786, and rendered a judgment that B paid KRW 843,450,026 to the Plaintiff, and delayed payment damages therefor, etc., which became final and conclusive on April 16, 2010.

B. B: (a) the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on November 4, 2003 by the Changwon District Court was received on November 4, 2003, and the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed under Article 19561 on the same day of receipt of the same registry; and (b) the registration was completed on the same day.

(c) B is currently insolvent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1-3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the provisional registration of the establishment of the above mortgage and the right to claim ownership transfer was invalid as the secured debt did not exist, or the cause is null and void as a result of false conspiracy, or the secured debt was extinguished as a result of the completion of prescription after the lapse of 10 years from November 4, 2003, which was the date of the above registration. Thus, the plaintiff sought cancellation of each of the above registrations by subrogation of the defendant as the creditor B as the creditor

B. The defendant's assertion that although the defendant lent KRW 10,000,000 to B of 200, the above money was not paid, the provisional registration of the establishment registration and the right to transfer ownership was completed due to the failure to pay the above money.

3. Even if the secured debt of the provisional registration of the establishment registration of the above neighboring mortgage and the right to claim for transfer of ownership existed as the defendant's assertion, the secured debt is deemed to have been extinguished after the lapse of ten years since the establishment of the secured debt, since it is apparent that the period of prescription has expired since the lapse of ten years since the establishment of the secured debt. Thus, in the lawsuit of this case seeking the plaintiff's subrogation against B, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure of the registration of cancellation

4. The plaintiff's claim is justified.