1. The defendant shall transfer to the non-party B (Acheon-si C the Suwon District Court's transfer to the non-party B (C) on the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor of the Suwon District Court 2010 tea128 against Nonparty B, KRW 135,257,530 based on the payment order finalized by the Suwon District Court 2010 tea 1128, and damages for delay of KRW 57,382,015 among them.

B. Nonparty B completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) indicated in the separate list owned by it (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate list owned by it, the creditor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 70,00,000, and April 21, 1997, for which the right to collateral security was registered as the ground for registration.

C. At the time of the registration of the instant right to collateral security, B was insolvent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or it is deemed that there is no dispute between the parties, the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul evidence No. 1 as a whole.

2. As of the filing date of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not have any secured debt as of the date of the instant lawsuit, or even if there exists such debt, the prescription expires after the lapse of ten years from April 21, 1997, which was the date of the instant lawsuit, and thus, on behalf of Nonparty B, who is insolvent, sought procedures for registration cancellation of the instant mortgage establishment registration against the Defendant on behalf of Nonparty B.

In light of the above, it is apparent that the filing date of this case was the date after the lapse of 10 years from April 21, 1997, which was the date of establishment of the right to collateral security of this case, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the right to collateral security registration to the plaintiff.

3. On February 13, 2009, the defendant asserted that on February 13, 2009, as to the secured obligation of the non-party B and the mortgage of this case, a notary public was certified as to the secured obligation of the non-party B and the mortgage of this case, and that this constitutes the approval of the obligation which is the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription.

The approval of the debt is done before the completion of the extinctive prescription, and it is obvious after April 21, 2007 that it is the expiration date of the extinctive prescription.