1. The subrogation between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is based on the Incheon District Court’s 2017TTT 3054.

1. Main elements;

A. On May 6, 1986, the establishment registration of a neighboring establishment in the Defendant’s name, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 6,000,000, was completed with the debtor C (the mother of the Plaintiff, the mother of the Plaintiff died on January 2, 1991), with the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “1”) and the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “two buildings”) as joint collateral, which is owned by the Plaintiff.

On February 21, 1987, upon the defendant's application, the decision of voluntary auction was made D on February 21, 1987, and E was awarded a successful bid on October 23, 1987.

In the above auction procedure, the defendant received dividends of KRW 1,859,150 on November 19, 1987 as a mortgagee.

1 Land remains as the plaintiff on the register, the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City(Seocheon-gu) has proceeded with the expropriation procedure for the land.

On March 30, 2017, the defendant exercised the right of subrogation for one land, and received a seizure and collection order ("the seizure and collection order of this case") with respect to one land to be paid by the plaintiff from the Nam-gu Incheon District Court 2017TTTT3054 as the claim amounting to 6,00,000 won.

The plaintiff filed an immediate appeal against the above order of seizure and collection.

On July 12, 2017, the Nam-gu Incheon District Court deposited KRW 28,093,550 of the compensation for one land on the grounds of the seizure and collection order, etc. of this case as the gold No. 5767 of the Incheon District Court in 2017.

On July 12, 2017, Incheon Nam-gu completed the registration of ownership transfer due to expropriation on August 1, 2017 with respect to land on August 9, 2017, each registration of ownership transfer was cancelled on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, 7, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the maturity period for the secured debt of the Defendant’s right to collateral security established on one land has arrived at January 2, 1991 alleged by the Plaintiff, at the latest.

Therefore, the above secured debt is extinctive prescription of January 2, 2001.