1. C:

A. Defendant A is each Daegu District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with respect to the claim for the acquisition amount, and received a decision of performance recommendation with the purport that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 23,382,935 won and 14,235,131 won among them, at the rate of 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the date of complete payment,” and that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 23,382,935 won and 14,235,131 won,” which was finalized around that time.

(206 Ghana233).b.

C) As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant A, C completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 40 million with respect to each real estate of KRW 1,3,4,5, and 6 on December 18, 2002, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 12792, which was received on December 18, 2002. 2) C completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over each real estate of KRW 1,2,3, and 4 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant B by the Seo-gu District Court, Seo-gu, Seoul District Court No. 734, Jan. 22, 2003, the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 40 million was completed.

C. Insolvent C owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet and each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and 86m2 in the Gyeongbuk-gun D. However, it is the excess of the obligation due to the Defendants’ obligations against the Defendants in excess, and the obligations against the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts that are not clearly disputed or not disputed, the entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the fact inquiry results against the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination C on the assertion that a mortgage contract should be invalidated between the Defendants and C is invalid as a juristic act by false representation of agreement. Thus, the Plaintiff, a creditor of C, seeks cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage in subrogation of C.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to regard the above mortgage contract between C and the defendants as false.

3. Determination as to the claim on the extinction of prescription on the secured claim

A. Part of the claim against the defendant A is limited to one of the parties.