1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed with Nonparty D a payment order with the U.S. District Court 2010 tea6303 to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service of the payment order and the payment order,” and the said court issued the payment order on December 1, 2010 and became final and conclusive on December 24, 2010.

B. On April 28, 1993, the non-party D completed the registration of creation of a collateral security (hereinafter "mortgage of this case") in the name of the defendant with respect to the non-party 2 and 1106 Dong-dong, Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the real estate of this case").

C. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant application for auction with respect to the instant real estate with the said finalized payment order, and sold the instant real estate to Nonparty F. On May 28, 2015, the instant auction court drafted the instant distribution schedule that distributes KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee, to the Plaintiff, who is the right to collateral security, KRW 33,519,106.

Meanwhile, on July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for registration of cancellation of the instant right to collateral security on the ground that “the Defendant’s secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was false credit or expired on April 28, 2003,” with the Busan District Court Decision 2013Ma63581, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the instant secured debt of the instant right to collateral security exists actually, and D prepares and delivers each payment note to the Defendant on March 25, 2003, May 10, 2008, and April 20, 2012, the extinctive prescription was suspended by approving the Defendant’s debt, and the Plaintiff appealed with the Busan District Court Decision 2014Na15016, but the judgment was finalized on June 1, 2015, which was the date of the instant distribution schedule.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 9-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the court on the defense of this case is that the plaintiff did not have any secured obligation of the right to collateral security of this case, or that extinctive prescription.