1. As to each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall make a registration office of the Seoul Western District Court on June 1996.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1996, the Defendant borrowed 20,000,000 won to C at an annual interest rate of 3% (hereinafter referred to as “claim for the loan of this case”). On or around the 1st of the same month, the Defendant obtained the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet from C, the obligor, the maximum debt amount of which is 30,000,000 won.

B. On May 20, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each real estate of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan against C by the Plaintiff’s assertion has expired after the extinctive prescription, the Defendant shall cancel the instant right to collateral security.

Even if Nonparty D concurrently assumed the debt of Nonparty D and partially repaid it, it cannot be viewed as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription of the debt of Nonparty D.

In addition, while acquiring C’s obligation concurrently, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security was an interest-free claim with the principal of KRW 35,000,000,000. Since D repaid the principal of KRW 16,567,00, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security remains only KRW 19,433,00,00, and the Defendant should cancel the instant right to collateral security after receiving the said amount.

B. Since it is very rare to accept the obligation through a contract with the obligee without the obligee’s request in the case of the assumption of the obligation jointly with the judgment, the obligor and the underwriter are in a joint and several liability relationship with the obligor, and if there is no subjective joint and several liability relationship due to the obligor’s request, the obligor and the underwriter are in a non-joint and several relationship.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32409, Aug. 20, 2009). The extinctive prescription of a guaranteed obligation is not completed for reasons such as the interruption of extinctive prescription.