1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, C, and D shall have regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the Daejeon District Court on April 2006.

1. Claim against Defendant B, C, and D

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Defendant C or D: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act) by public notice (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act): Defendant B: Judgment of deemed confession (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant Republic of Korea is ordered to submit the statement No. 1-A.

With respect to the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as stated in the port, ① the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was completed on May 3, 2006, ② the Daejeon District Court’s 42599, ② the 83857, Sept. 7, 2006, which was received on September 7, 2006, ③ the Daejeon District Court’s 99548, which was received on October 18, 2006, on the ground of the seizure of each right to collateral security, and it is recognized that the said right to collateral security does not exist any longer after the extinctive prescription has expired.

B. In cases where the right to collateral security is cancelled because the secured claim of the right to collateral security does not exist, the seizure right holder is obligated to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the right to collateral security as a third party with an interest in the registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da70041, May 28, 2004). Thus, the Defendant Republic of Korea has the duty to express his/her consent to the Plaintiff regarding the cancellation of the registration of