① The Plaintiff’s mother completed the registration of the creation of mortgage of this case without the Plaintiff’s permission, and the registration of the creation of mortgage of this case is null and void. ② Even if not, the Plaintiff’s mother asserts that the secured claim of this case has expired by prescription.

First, I examine the first argument.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff prepared a loan certificate stating that the plaintiff borrowed 7 million won from the defendant on June 12, 2008 at interest rate of 48% per annum and due date on September 12, 2008. The above loan certificate is accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression issued directly by the plaintiff on the same day.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff appeared on the first day for pleading of this case and entered “A”, resident registration number, and address in his own pen, and the certificate of the personal seal impression was issued directly,” the establishment of the said certificate is recognized. In light of the fact that the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in this case was completed on the same day as the date on which the above certificate was prepared, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the establishment registration of the right to collateral security in this case was completed without the Plaintiff’s permission, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence No. 3, the payment order was issued on December 1, 2008 that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant KRW 7 million and its delayed payment damages, and its demand procedure expenses," and the payment order was issued on December 23, 2008, by the defendant applied for payment order with the above loan certificate as Incheon District Court Decision 2008Da16509.