A. On October 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 600 million from the Defendant who runs a financial service business, etc. and secured the above loan debt (hereinafter “instant secured loan”). On October 24, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the attached property as the Plaintiff and the mortgagee as the Defendant on October 24, 2005.

B. The secured debt of this case is subject to the five-year commercial prescription due to the Defendant’s commercial activities or ancillary commercial activities. As such, even if September 25, 2008, which was the date of partial repayment of the secured debt of this case, was the starting point of the statute of limitations, it is apparent that the secured debt of this case was more than five years from September 25, 2008, even if it was the starting point of the statute of limitations. Thus, the secured debt of this case expired due to the completion of the statute of limitations.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the attached list on the ground of the expiration of extinctive prescription of the secured obligation of this case to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. In this judgment rendered on June 18, 2015, this Court had omitted the determination on the claims stated in the text, which constitutes an omission of judgment, and thus, further judgment is rendered as ordered in accordance with Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.