1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the primary claim and the ancillary claim are the main claim.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The right to collateral security of this case, which is the primary claim, is null and void since the secured claim does not exist. Even if not, the right to collateral security of this case has expired on April 25, 2002 after three years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the right to claim the price of goods under the Civil Act from April 25, 2002 when the third year after the secured claim was transferred to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff, as a creditor of B, seeks cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage that is null and void against B by subrogation of B.

B. Even if the act of the conjunctive claim B, on or around December 2016, in writing, written statement of payment (Evidence B No. 6), and written statement of fact (Evidence B No. 9) on February 14, 2017, is recognized as waiver of prescription benefit, each declaration of intent to waive prescription benefit should be cancelled as fraudulent act. If so, as alleged in the primary claim, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has expired due to the completion of prescription, the Plaintiff seek against the Defendant on behalf of B for cancellation of the registration of creation of mortgage that remains invalid.

3. We examine the part dismissed in the instant lawsuit, ex officio, as to the legitimacy of the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, among the main claims and preliminary claims.

In cases where a creditor’s right to a debtor, which is to be preserved by subrogation, is a monetary claim in the event that the creditor’s right to the debtor is a monetary claim, that is, the need to preserve the creditor’s right to the third debtor by subrogation of the debtor only when the debtor is insolvent (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da76556, Feb. 26, 2009). In other words, there exists a need to preserve the above, namely, the creditor’s insolvency should be asserted and proved by the creditor.