1. As to shares 1,653/6,00 of C Forest land 6,596 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, D:

A. Defendant A is the Cheongju District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 18, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 14,451,005 won and 4,613,220 won with an annual interest of 20% per annum from June 16, 2013 to the date of full payment (20% per annum)” (the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive as of July 23, 2013.

B. On November 7, 1990, D owned 1,653 of the forest land as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”). On November 7, 1990, D completed the registration of transfer of ownership as described in Paragraph (a) of the Disposition No. 1 on the ground of the promise to return the substitute land as of November 6, 1990. On April 7, 1992, D completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, such as the registration No. 100 million won against the Defendant B and the obligor D’s order No. 1 as the obligor D’s order.

C. Defendant A filed a lawsuit against D as Seoul Western District Court 92Kadan1881, which requested D to implement the principal registration procedure based on the above provisional registration, and D accepted the above claim on September 18, 1992.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the plaintiff who subrogated to determine the claim against the defendant D, asserting that the extinctive prescription of the secured claim of the above secured claim of the right to collateral security has expired against the defendant B, the defendant B shall be deemed to have led to the confession of the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act).

Defendant A, in a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the principal registration procedure based on the above provisional registration filed against Defendant A, which was filed by Defendant A with Defendant A, had not completed the principal registration until the lapse of ten years from the failure of the claimant. Since Defendant A’s right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the above provisional registration has expired by prescription, Defendant A is obliged to cancel the above provisional registration.

3. Thus, the defendants completed the forest of this case to D.