1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the U.S. District Court No. 2010 tea6303 against C for the payment order, and the said court issued the payment order on December 1, 2010 that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 70 million won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from December 10, 2010 to the date of full payment, and 228,240 won per annum from December 10, 201.”

The above payment order was finalized on December 24, 2010.

B. On April 28, 1993, C completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) in the Defendant’s future regarding real estate listed in the attached list.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The secured claim of the instant right to collateral security is a false claim.

Even if not false bonds, the extinctive prescription was completed on April 28, 1993 and expired on April 28, 2003, since 10 years since April 28, 1993.

Therefore, in order to preserve the claim against C, the Plaintiff is acting in subrogation for the Defendant to cancel the right to collateral security against C.

(2) The Defendant alleged as the Defendant’s assertion that he borrowed KRW 70,000,000 from C on several occasions under the name of the apartment building construction fund for the apartment building construction project. As such, the Defendant received a loan certificate stating that C would receive KRW 70,000,000 from Apr. 15, 1993 as interest rate of KRW 7% per annum. In order to secure the above claim, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage.

Therefore, the defendant's claim against C is the true claim.

After that, the defendant received a written notice from C that C would pay an amount including interest to the defendant three times.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the secured claim was suspended.

B. (1) Determination of whether a false claim is a mortgage is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act) and continuing to exist.