1. The Defendant’s respective shares in the attached list to the Plaintiff are as follows: Daegu District Court No. 11334, Mar. 7, 2008.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty B inherited 1/5 of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet on August 1, 2005.

B. B completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral of KRW 180,000,000,000 to the Defendant as the Daegu District Court No. 11334, Mar. 7, 2008 with respect to each share stated in the separate sheet No. 1 to 3, 2008, as to the portion indicated in the separate sheet No. 32875, Mar. 7, 2008 with respect to the establishment of a collateral of KRW 60,000,000,000 to the Defendant

C. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against B from Nonparty C (formerly changed Trade Name D).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Claim that the secured debt of each of the above mortgage establishment registration on the Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by a false conspiracy or by a false conspiracy, or its extinctive prescription has expired. 2) The Defendant alleged that the Defendant lent a total of KRW 750 million to B and E couple during the period from November 2002 to June 2003, and the husband and wife failed to pay the debt properly, thereby making the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

B and E have approved the obligation to the Defendant from time to time and requested a grace period, so the extinctive prescription has not yet been completed or the obligor has waived the benefit of extinctive prescription.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the completion of the extinctive prescription, the period of repayment of loan claims, which are the secured claims of each of the above mortgages, arrived before March 7, 2008, which was the date of the registration of establishment of a mortgage of each of the above regions. The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 15, 2018, which was ten years after the said lawsuit was filed, does not dispute the Defendant. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription was completed with respect to the secured claims

I would like to say.

The defendant asserts that B and E, the debtor of the above loan claim, from time to time, have approved the debt and requested a grace period.