1. With respect to C the forest land D 17,554 square meters in a smuggling:

A. Defendant A received on November 9, 2002 the Changwon District Court’s smuggling Branch.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 24, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against C on real estate with the claimed amount of KRW 12,307,695, the amount of KRW 17,554,00 (hereinafter “instant land”) with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Kadan82451 (hereinafter “instant land”) and received a decision of acceptance from the same court on June 24, 2005.

B. On June 28, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Busan District Court 2006da376825, and on July 7, 2006, “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 8,081,677 won and 6,631,195 won per annum from June 30, 2003 to the day of full payment, 29% per annum from June 30, 2003 to the day of full payment, and 39% per annum from June 30, 2003 to the day of full payment.” The decision of performance recommendation was finalized on July 27, 2006.

C. On November 9, 2002, C completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage 1”) which is the maximum debt amount of 7,600,000,000 arising from the contract on November 8, 2002 with respect to the instant land. On July 22, 2004, C completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage 2-mortgage”) with Defendant B on July 22, 2004, which is the maximum debt amount of 30,000,000, which is the basis of the contract on July 22, 2004, and completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage 2-mortgage”) with E on January 29, 2008.

C. On the other hand, C is in excess of its obligation because it does not possess any particular property at present.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts seen earlier prior to the determination on the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the secured claim of the first right to collateral security was in a state that the secured claim of the second right to collateral security was able to be exercised at the latest on July 22, 2004, which is the registration payment date, at the latest, on the registration payment date, at the latest. The extinctive prescription period is running from that time. Since it is apparent that the ten years have passed thereafter, the first right to collateral security and the second right to collateral security are set forth in the first right to collateral security.