1. Defendant B is the Daegu District Court with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph 1 of the attached Table to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On July 5, 2005, the Plaintiff’s basic facts are related to real estate stated in Paragraph 1 of the Attached List owned by D. The same year.

5. At the time of completing the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase on March 25, 1998, the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 4267 of March 25, 1998) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said real estate as the debtor D, the maximum debt amount 12 million won, and the registration of ownership transfer on the part of the defendant B

(Then, on March 26, 1998, the registration of modification to increase the maximum debt amount to 80 million won by the same registry office No. 4357, which was received on March 26, 1998 (hereinafter “the first collateral mortgage of this case”). 【No. 1 collateral security of this case”)

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the first collateral mortgage of this case was established by a false agreement between D and the Defendant without the secured debt, and thus, Defendant B is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of the first collateral of this case. However, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and No. 2, it can be known that Defendant B completed the registration of establishment of the first collateral of this case with the permission of D, the land owner of E, in order to secure the claim amounting to KRW 40 million, for the claim amounting to KRW 40,000,000, the first collateral mortgage of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, and therefore, the above claim against Defendant B cannot be deemed to have exercised its right from March 25, 1998, which was at least at the time of the establishment of the first collateral collateral mortgage of this case, and therefore, the period of prescription has expired after the lapse of 2108,305.25.

As such, the establishment registration of the first place of the instant case should be cancelled due to the extinction of the secured obligation, so the Plaintiff’s above assertion is with merit.

3. If so, Defendant B shall provide the Plaintiff with the above real estate.