1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 4, and there is no counter-proof.

On June 20, 2002, the Plaintiff borrowed a loan of KRW 85,00,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) from the non-party Seocho Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “Non-Party 1 Agricultural Cooperative”) for the end of June 20, 2005 as the end of June 20, 2005.

B. On June 18, 2002, 196, the non-party 1 had registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The non-party 1 had completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”).

C. On November 26, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to Nonparty B, and Nonparty B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on May 23, 2007.

On June 23, 2008, No. 54,813,755 won was distributed by the loan of this case on the date of distribution of D's auction of real estate rent D's auction of real estate located in Chuncheon District Court for the instant real estate on June 23, 2008

E. On November 30, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for personal bankruptcy and exemption with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Hadan39323, 2006Ma40841, and the Plaintiff was granted immunity on December 28, 2007. The Plaintiff did not enter the non-party agricultural cooperative in the list of creditors at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption.

F. On December 22, 2005, the Defendant transferred the claim against the Plaintiff from the non-party Seocho Agricultural Cooperative Co., Ltd. for the loan of this case.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the claim for the instant loan is exempt by Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, since the Plaintiff did not enter it in the list of creditors in bad faith.