1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to B, the defendant shall make a separate statement with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to B of Gwangju District Court.

1. On January 13, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) by setting the coverage amount as 11,050,000N, and the guarantee term as 20 March 20, 2008. ② On December 14, 2000, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement by setting the guarantee term as 425,000,000 won, and the guarantee term as 13 December 13, 2001 (up to December 14, 2004).

At the time, B jointly and severally guaranteed all debts owed by C to the plaintiff according to the credit guarantee agreement above.

C In January 6, 2004, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of the due date on the part of the party branch. After performing the guaranteed obligation under the above credit guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for indemnity and brought a claim for the amount of damages equivalent to 453,910,808 won and damages for delay.

On the other hand, on November 14, 200, B concluded a mortgage agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant as joint collateral with a maximum debt amount of 100,000,000,000 won, and the debtor B (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”). Around that time, B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as stated in the text (hereinafter “the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”).

At present, the small-sized property B exceeds the positive property.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 to 2, 4-2, 5-1, 2, 2-2, and 5-1 to Nari market, the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of fact inquiry

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the mortgage contract of this case was null and void by a false agreement between the Defendant and B, and even if the secured obligation actually exists, the extinctive prescription is completed, and thus, the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the other punishments of the Defendant and B, from around 1999 to around 2000, actually lent approximately KRW 90,000,00 in total to B. However, in order to facilitate the legal relationship between the Defendant’s demand for repayment and the obligee, only the Defendant is the Defendant.