근저당권말소
1. The defendant, on May 15, 1996, filed with the plaintiff with respect to 10017 square meters of land C in the Jeonnam-gun, Gwangju District Court for the plaintiff.
1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 3, 1996 with respect to the forest land C, 1017 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 3, 1996 with respect to the Defendant of Gwangju District Court as the receipt No. 7584 on May 15, 1996 of the maximum debt amount of KRW 28 million (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the right to collateral security was established by borrowing money from the Defendant from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s actual obligor’s friendship repaid the above loan in full, and even if the claim was not repaid, the extinctive prescription of the right to collateral security has expired after the completion of the extinctive prescription, and thus, the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security
B. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above loan claims secured by the instant right to collateral security have been fully repaid. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
Next, with respect to whether the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has expired by prescription, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the due date for the above secured claim claimed by the Plaintiff has been fixed, and the above secured claim shall be deemed a claim without setting the due date, and since a claim without setting the due date may be exercised at the time of its establishment, the extinctive prescription shall also run from that time.
According to the above facts, the above secured debt should be deemed to have been able to exercise at least from May 15, 1996, which was the date of the creation of the right to collateral of this case, and as long as the ten years have passed thereafter, it is apparent that the above secured debt had already been extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription on May 15, 2006, which was before the lawsuit of this case.
Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff.