1. On November 12, 1994, the defendant, with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph (1) of the attached list, shall be registered with the Busan District Court's private registry office.

1. Basic facts

A. B completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, which was received on November 12, 1994 as to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, the Busan District Court (hereinafter “instant No. 1 collateral mortgage”) and with respect to each real estate listed in paragraphs 2 through 7 of the attached Table No. 1, the Changwon District Court completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the Busan District Court’s Office of Cheongwon District Court No. 24286, Nov. 15, 1994, which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 20 million.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant second collateral security”). B. The instant collective security (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant collective security”).

The Yong-Maz Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Manz”) concluded a credit guarantee insurance agreement with the Plaintiff on the obligation to pay the cost of goods, and B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of indemnity against the Plaintiff on April 7, 1994.

C. On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the claim for reimbursement amount against the Yongsan-do Corporation B and the Busan District Court 2010Da4428, which became final and conclusive on March 15, 201.

(A) An action for the interruption of extinctive prescription period in Busan District Court Decision 99Gadan90389). / [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In regard to the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant collective security claims in collusion with the Defendant and B should be cancelled since the registration of invalidity of the cause or the completion of the extinctive prescription of the secured claim without any secured claim from the beginning, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s claim was duly established, and that the extinctive prescription was suspended due to the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’

3. Determination as to the existence of the secured claim

(a) The relevant legal doctrine is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act) and continuing to exist;