1. All of the plaintiff's lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

2. In the case of applications for suspension of enforcement by this Court 2015 Chicago1313.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s husband C purchased on June 5, 1995 the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Suwon District Court No. 7859 on the 15th of the same month, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Suwon District Court No. 7859, Jun. 12, 1995, the Plaintiff’s husband C completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000 in the future B, who is the wife and the Plaintiff’s South-North Dong, for the purpose of

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

Since then C decided to donate the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and on July 1998

3. The registration of the transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of donation in the future of the Plaintiff as No. 10372, which received the Gyeyang Branch Branch of Suwon District Court.

C. Meanwhile, on September 17, 1999, Seoul Bank, which held loan claims against B, transferred them to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and the Korea Asset Management Corporation transferred them to the Defendant on September 18, 2012.

On October 23, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B against the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013 Ghana5216, and received a favorable judgment on October 23, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant final and conclusive judgment”). On February 5, 2014, around February 5, 2014, the Defendant received the Seoul Central District Court’s order of seizure and collection of the claim against the instant secured mortgage claim as the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013TBT 41976

(hereinafter "the collection order of this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the collection order of this case / [the ground for recognition], Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the merits of the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the right to collateral security was extinguished by the lapse of the extinctive prescription by failing to exercise the right for ten years, even if there was a debt under the instant right to collateral security for ten years.