1. The defendant shall receive on November 25, 2002 from the Jeonju District Court, the Go Chang District Court, the Go Chang District Court, the registration office, and each real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 7, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against B, etc. with the Jeonju District Court 2003Da38230, and rendered a judgment on Jan. 7, 2005 that “B, etc. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,983,240, and damages for delay for KRW 90,315,49, among them,” which became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On the other hand, on November 25, 2002, B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant, a female donor, as the Defendant on November 25, 2002, at the maximum debt amount of KRW 350,000,000,000, and the debtor B and the mortgagee, as the Defendant, (hereinafter “the registration of creation of a neighboring real estate of this case”) as the Defendant

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case did not exist, repayment or prescription expired, or that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled since it was invalid because it was based on the false representation of agreement.

As to this, the defendant argued to the effect that the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case was completed in order to secure the balance of the loan claim amounting to KRW 350 million in the amount of KRW 51 million against B, and that the extinctive prescription of the secured claim has not yet been completed.

B. 1) The instant mortgage is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the obligation to be secured and reserving the determination of the obligation in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act, which is established for the purpose of securing a certain limit from a continuous settlement of accounts in the future. As such, there should be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral, and the secured claim of the right to collateral at the time the right to collateral is established.