1. The defendant shall receive on August 2, 2003 from the Busan District Court's Busan District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to B.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against B as Busan District Court Decision 2004Gada183715, and received a decision of performance recommendation from the above court that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 5,560,645 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 19% per annum from February 25, 2004 to July 6, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above decision was finalized on July 21, 2004.

B. In order to interrupt extinctive prescription of a claim under the above decision, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against B with the Busan District Court 2013 Ghana205082, and was sentenced by the above court on March 18, 2014 that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 14,039,808 won and the interest rate of 20% per annum from June 26, 2012 to the date of complete payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. The Plaintiff’s claim against B reaches KRW 15,429,110 as of May 15, 2015.

B is currently insolvent.

E. Meanwhile, on August 1, 2003, the Defendant lent KRW 27 million to B on September 15, 2003, the due date for reimbursement was determined and lent to B as of September 15, 2003. In order to secure the said claim, B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring maximum debt amount of KRW 35 million with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the mortgagee at the time of August 2, 2003.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured obligation based on the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage was nonexistent or extinguished due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage against the Defendant in subrogation of B in order to preserve the claim for reimbursement against the insolvent Party B.

B. According to the facts of the recognition of the existence of the preserved claim 1, the Plaintiff’s indemnity amounting to KRW 15,429,110 against B.