As a commercial obligation of a delinquent taxpayer, the defendant who seized the right to collateral security with extinctive prescription is obligated to consent to the cancellation of the right to collateral security.

The Plaintiff’s remainder obligations against the Defendant Company shall be deemed to have expired by the lapse of five years from September 25, 2008, which is the date of establishment of the right to collateral security. Therefore, the Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent as a third party having an interest in the cancellation of the said right to collateral security as a third party on the register.

2018Gahap112671 Lawsuits for claims, such as cancellation of registration of creation of a mortgage near the area

IsaA

Republic of Korea outside 3

June 5, 2019

July 3, 2019

1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant BBM, Inc., conducted the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the receiptxx on September 25, 2008, which was completed on September 25, 2008 in Suwon District Court, for the registration of cancellation of the establishment of a mortgage near the registration of establishment of a mortgage, and BBM, for the registration of cancellation of the establishment of a mortgage near the above paragraph (a), the Defendants bear the burden of the litigation expenses.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

① On August 13, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant BBM (hereinafter “Defendant BBM”) - 3- on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On September 25, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant BBM on the remainder of the sales price for Defendant BBM as the secured obligation, and completed the registration of the establishment of the collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 42,230,900 on the instant real estate, as described in the Disposition 1(a).

② Since then, the trustee in bankruptcy of the Seoul Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Trustee in Bankruptcy”), Defendant Republic of Korea, and Defendant x City seized each of the instant secured claims, and completed the registration of seizure of each of the instant secured claims.

[Grounds for Recognition] Confession (as to Defendant BBP Co., Ltd.)

Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings (as against the defendants)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

The Plaintiff’s remainder of debt against Defendant BBE, which is the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, shall be deemed to have expired by the lapse of five years from September 25, 2008, which was the date of establishment of the instant right to collateral security.

Therefore, Defendant BBE is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of the instant right to collateral security to the Plaintiff, and the obligees who completed provisional seizure registration with respect to the instant right to collateral security, and the remaining Defendants, who are third parties having interests in the registry, are obligated to express their consent with respect to the cancellation registration of the instant right to collateral security.

3. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant trustee in bankruptcy regarding DD Corporation

- 4- The above Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription was suspended since the above Defendant received a claim attachment and collection order on August 26, 201 with respect to the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security on the ground that it was served on the Plaintiff on August 31, 2011.

However, the above defendant's claim for the sale price against the plaintiff of the defendant BBM, which is the claim subject to seizure, has only the effect of the peremptory notice as stipulated in Article 174 of the Civil Code. Since there is no assertion or proof as to the existence of a judicial claim against the plaintiff within six months thereafter, the above defendant's order for seizure and collection of the above defendant's claim has no effect of interrupting prescription.

Therefore, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted on the grounds of all.