1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. On the ancillary claim of the Plaintiff as added at the trial:

A. B on January 20, 2012

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 1994, B and the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with the obligor B, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 49,00,000 with respect to the forest land of this case (hereinafter “the forest of this case”). On October 17, 1994, B and the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring forest of this case”) with the Seoul District Court No. 1945 on October 17, 1994.

B. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B against Jeonju District Court 9Da29260, which was the result of August 1, 200, "B shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 440,674,236 won for 426,453,866 won from March 6, 1995 to February 15, 1998, 25% per annum from the next day to October 31, 1998, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As to the primary claim, the Plaintiff, as the primary creditor of B, sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation of registration on the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case by subrogation, in order to preserve the claim for its own indemnity as the creditor of B.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is not lawful, since there is no claim of the Plaintiff, which is the preserved right of the instant lawsuit, due to the Plaintiff’s claim’s completion of five-year commercial extinctive prescription or ten-year civil extinctive prescription.

The third obligor cannot set up against the obligee any defense that the obligee has against the obligee in the obligee subrogation lawsuit. In principle, if the extinctive prescription of the claim has been completed, only the person who is entitled to invoke it shall be entitled to benefit of prescription, and the third obligor in the obligee subrogation lawsuit shall not be able to exercise it.

Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on February 12, 2004