근저당설정등기 말소청구
1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s office of registry of Cheongju District Court shall be held on June 24, 2004.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim, the defendants are obligated to perform each of the items in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances according to the above facts of recognition.
2. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea
A. On this point, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts to the effect that, in the case of the right to collateral security listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”), the extinctive prescription of the secured claim is not run on the basis of the date of establishment of the right to collateral security, but, if there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant B on the due date, the extinctive prescription is run from that time, and that the extinctive prescription may have been interrupted due to any other reason,
B. In full view of all the evidence submitted by the Defendant Republic of Korea, the starting date of extinctive prescription of the secured claim of the instant right to collateral is different from the date on which the Plaintiff asserted.
The above defendant's assertion is without merit, since it is not sufficient to recognize that the extinctive prescription of the above claim has been interrupted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.