1. The defendant is on the ground of the expiration of the extinctive prescription on February 23, 2009 with respect to the land size of 1934 square meters in Yongcheon-si, Youngcheon-si.

1. In around 1999, the Defendant purchased real estate, such as land and buildings, from Yongcheon-si D, but the Defendant was unable to repay the secured debt, such as provisional attachment set forth by B, which was made on the said real estate, on behalf of the Defendant.

Since then, in order to secure the Defendant’s liability for reimbursement, B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the basis of the contract on February 24, 1999, No. 4562, which was received on February 24, 199, with respect to the land size of 1934 square meters, which was owned by the Defendant, the Daegu District Court, Youngcheon-gu District Court, Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court), the obligor, B, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

The Plaintiff has a claim amounting to B, 112,809,956 won and 44,036,496 won among them, with 15% per annum from August 5, 2011 to September 9, 2011, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

(Seoul District Court 201j 7473). B is currently in excess of obligations.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2

A. The plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription was completed on February 23, 2009, since the defendant did not exercise the secured obligation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage for the ten-year period.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription has not been completed since he approved the debt B.

B. The statute of limitations run from the time when a creditor is entitled to exercise his/her right. However, there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion that B approved his/her obligation, and thus, the statute of limitations expired on February 23, 2009.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the part of the plaintiff who exercises the creditor's subrogation right as the creditor B.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and accepted.