1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract for the guarantee of installment sales with X Co., Ltd. (Z Co., Ltd., YA on June 14, 1991, AAB on June 15, 1994, AB on January 20, 200, AB, AC on October 18, 200, AC on November 3, 200, and X on November 3, 2001; hereinafter “X”), and subrogated for the payment of installment payment for automobiles.

B. As of February 23, 2015, the principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against X is KRW 59,662,330 as of February 23, 2015, and X has not been repaid until now.

C. Around September 1991, the Defendant invested KRW 3.5 million between X and used X facilities for ten years. However, if X does not re-contract after the expiration of the contract period, the Defendant entered into a contract to return KRW 6 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”). D.

B around September 11, 1991, in order to secure the Defendant’s right to return KRW 6 million above, X completed the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the neighboring land of this case, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 6,00,000,000 owned by Yangju-si with respect to YY 12397 square meters in their possession.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant right to collateral security was null and void because there was no secured debt or there was a false conspiracy between X and the Defendant. (2) The instant right to collateral security has expired by prescription.

3) Therefore, X is in insolvent, and the Plaintiff seeks to cancel the registration of creation of a mortgage on the part of the Defendant on behalf of X in order to preserve the claim against X. B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) X is not in insolvent, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is unlawful by holding that it is necessary to preserve the obligee’s subrogation right.

2. The Defendant’s right to collateral security was X around September 1991.