1. Defendant A, B, and C jointly and severally filed against the Plaintiff KRW 115,893,924 and KRW 113,369,532 among them.

1. The facts of the reasons for the claim stated in the attached Form for determining the claims against Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) (hereinafter “A”), B, and C may be acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-4.

According to the above facts, Defendant A, B, and C are jointly and severally liable to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 115,893,924 (i.e., remaining amount of KRW 113,369,532 as substitute payment of KRW 159,52 as substitute payment of KRW 2,524,23) and the remaining amount of subrogated payment of KRW 113,369,532 as of June 28, 2004 through September 27, 2004, annual 14% from September 28, 2004 to January 12, 2005, annual 16% from September 28, 2004 to January 12, 2005, and from January 13, 2005 to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), Defendant D completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a mortgage of this case”) around the obligor C, Defendant C, and Defendant D, a mortgagee of the collective security (hereinafter “mortgage”) under the Jeonju District Court No. 36644, July 24, 2003, received the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 5, and the purport of whole pleading

B. (i) The registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff is invalid for the reason that the secured claim does not exist at the time of the establishment. Even if the secured claim existed at the time of the establishment, the extinctive prescription expired after the lapse of 10 years from July 22, 2003 when the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case was completed.

The plaintiff, as the creditor of the defendant C, seeks the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case by subrogation of the defendant C.

D. Defendant C, the debtor of Defendant D’s assertion, is not insolvent, so there is no need to preserve the creditor subrogation lawsuit.

Defendant D loaned to Defendant C several times from 1997 to 2001.