1. The defendant shall accept on December 16, 2002, the registration office of the Gwangju District Court with respect to the land size of 129 square meters for Gwangju Mine-gu C road.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D for the claim for reimbursement of Gwangju District Court 2010Kadan7598. On April 1, 2011, the said court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 19, 2010 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 63,190,918 and KRW 63,087,214. The said ruling was finalized on April 20, 2011.

B. The registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment in the Defendant’s name E (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment”) was completed as of December 16, 2002 by the registration office of the Gwangju District Court, No. 50622, Dec. 16, 2002, the maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000, and the debtor’s establishment of a neighboring establishment in the Defendant’s name E (hereinafter “instant

(c) D is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The ten years have elapsed since the date of registration of creation unless there is a ground to interrupt the extinctive prescription. According to the above facts, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral of this case is apparent in fact that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has elapsed from December 16, 2002, which was the date of registration of creation at the time of the instant lawsuit. Thus, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral of this case had already expired due to the completion of prescription.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the debtor E of the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case borrowed loans from the defendant for business funds, and thus, there is a debt secured by the mortgage of this case, so the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the ground for interruption of the statute of limitations. Thus, the defendant's

Therefore, D can file a claim against the defendant for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring mortgage of this case. Since D does not exercise its rights, the defendant is the creditor of D, who is insolvent.