1. As to the Plaintiff with respect to Gwangju Mine-gu E-road 149 square meters:

A. Defendant C shall receive May 27, 1997 from the Gwangju District Court.

Ⅰ Claim against Defendant C

1. In light of the fact that Defendant C supplied goods equivalent to KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff, the owner of the road of KRW 149 square meters in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, in around 1997, and on May 27, 1997, Defendant C completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) as stated in Section 1(A) with respect to the said real estate in order to secure the above goods payment obligation (hereinafter “instant obligation”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the debt of this case was extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and this is examined.

According to the above facts, since it is apparent that the debt of this case has been ten years of extinctive prescription from the due date, the debt of this case, which is the secured debt of this case, was extinguished after the lapse of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, since the secured claim of this case is extinguished by the extinction of the secured claim of this case, the above secured claim is also extinguished in accordance with the principle of non-existence, Defendant C has the obligation to cancel the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case on the above secured property

3. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C continued to urge the Plaintiff to repay the instant debt at that time, and the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff accepted the instant debt by promising to repay the instant debt at that time, and the Plaintiff also asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion of extinctive prescription of the instant debt constitutes an abuse of rights, as the Plaintiff was going to the demand of Defendant C for a long time. However, the Plaintiff approved the instant debt.

Since there is no evidence that the plaintiff's defense of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Ⅱ Claim against Defendant D

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act.