1. The defendant on June 29, 2002 to Nonparty D with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who holds monetary claims against D pursuant to the payment order (No. 2011) No. 6062 of this Court.

B. D is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and as to each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, the former District Court Kim Jong-dong Office, the 1213, received on June 29, 2002, the maximum debt amount of which was KRW 50,000,000, and the debtor D’s establishment registration was completed, with regard to each of the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion 1) Inasmuch as the statute of limitations has expired even if the Plaintiff’s claim against D does not exist or exists, the said claim against each of the instant real estate should also be cancelled, and the Plaintiff, as the obligee against D, sought the cancellation of the said claim on behalf of the Defendant by subrogationing D as the obligee against D. 2) The Defendant, from time to time, received KRW 50 million from D around 2002 on the ground that the Defendant provided financial support to D, thereby obtaining the registration of establishment of a mortgage consisting of KRW 50 million with respect to each of the instant real estate.

The defendant's claim against D against D was interrupted due to D's acceptance of debt, and even if the extinctive prescription has expired, D's claim is without merit since it renounced the extinctive prescription benefit.

In addition, the plaintiff's claim against D does not exist after the extinctive prescription is completed.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a claim filed by a creditor against a third party by exercising the obligee’s subrogation right, the third obligor cannot set up against the obligee any defense that the obligor has against the obligee, and in principle, the person who can invokes the extinctive prescription right when the extinctive prescription of the claim is completed is limited to the person who directly receives the benefit of prescription, and the third obligor cannot exercise it (Supreme Court Decision 2004. Feb. 2