1. The plaintiff's successor's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be known through each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings.

On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) received corporate bank and LG card B’s credit, and thereafter filed a payment order against B with the Incheon District Court No. 2007 tea7459, and on August 24, 2007, the Plaintiff (“B”) paid the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) totaling KRW 43,383,305, and delayed damages, the payment order was finalized upon receipt of the payment order. In other words, the Seoul Central District Court No. 2017 tea38902, Sept. 13, 2017; “B” paid the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) the total sum of principal and interest of KRW 84,356,056, and delayed damages, and the payment order became final and conclusive upon receipt of the payment order.

On the other hand, B on June 22, 1999, on the land of this case owned by the Defendant, on the grounds of a contract to establish a contract on June 14, 1999, the B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million.

On December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage, and the instant complaint reached the Defendant on January 12, 2018. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired the claim against B under the above payment order from the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) on January 26, 2018.

2. The registration of the establishment of the creation of a collateral in the instant case by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor did not exist, and even if the Plaintiff exists, the secured claim has already been extinguished by setting the ten-year extinctive prescription period, and thus, should be cancelled.

3. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the whole of the pleadings, the Defendant loaned KRW 30 million to B on or around June 1999 and entered into a mortgage contract between the parties to secure the collection of the loan claims, and accordingly, the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case was completed, and thereafter, B is the Defendant.