The Republic of Korea and the Bank shall have accepted for the registration of cancellation of each registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

There is an obligation to make a private indication.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and this is accepted.

A. Defendant BB performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed under No. 23281, which was completed on July 10, 1997, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea expressed its intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant DD and EE implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed under No. 24529 of receipt on July 3, 1999 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch for each of 1/2 shares;

B. The DefendantCC bank expressed its intention to accept the registration of cancellation of the above establishment registration.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

A. On July 9, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the debtor, mortgagee BB, and maximum debt amount of 30 million won with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On July 10, 1997, the Plaintiff completed the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage with the debtor, the deceased, the maximum debt amount of 30 million won with the Defendant BB, and completed the establishment registration with the Defendant BB with the Suwon District Court No. 23281 as of July 10, 1997, which was received on July 10, 1997. (b) On June 19, 1999, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the debtor, the deceased, the maximum debt amount of 30 million won with respect to the instant real estate, and completed the establishment registration with respect to the deceased on July 3, 199 to the Suwon District Court was received on July 24529, 199.

C. On August 24, 2016, Defendant Republic of Korea seized Defendant BB’s above-mortgage claims, and completed the registration of seizure of the instant real estate on the 31st of the same month.

D. On November 29, 2013, the Deceased died, and Defendant DD and EE inherited one-half shares of the deceased’s property.

E. On September 7, 2017, DefendantCC bank (hereinafter “Defendant bank”) seized the Deceased’s above-mortgaged mortgage claims, and completed the registration of seizure of the instant real estate on the 25th of the same month.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the claims against Defendant BB, DD, and EE

In a case where the party who received the benefit due to the time limit for payment does not assert or prove that the claim is due, it is reasonable to view that the time limit is not fixed and the extinctive prescription is in progress from the time of establishment of the claim. In this case, in the absence of the Defendants’ assertion that the time limit for payment has been fixed for the claim of each of the above right to collateral, it is reasonable to view that the said right to collateral of each of the above right to collateral is in progress from the date of establishment of

Therefore, the secured claim of each of the above secured claims was extinguished by the statute of limitations at the expiration of 10 years from the date of the above contract. As such, Defendant BB owes the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage which was completed on July 10, 1997 with respect to the real estate of this case by the Suwon District Court Anyang Branch of Ansan Branch of Seoul District Court No. 23281, which was completed on July 10, 1997, and Defendant DD and EE which comprehensively succeeded to the property of this case 1/2 shares of the deceased, each of 1/2 shares each of the above secured claims of the above secured claims are liable to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on July 3, 199.

B. Determination as to claims against Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant Bank

In the event that a claim bearing a right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral security by means of additional registration in the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral security because the seizure of the right to collateral security has become effective even in the right to collateral security, which is a subordinate right upon the incidental nature of the right to collateral security, if the right to collateral security is seized. If the right to collateral security does not exist, the seizure order shall be null and void. In the event of cancellation of the right to collateral security, the seizure right holder has a duty to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the right to collateral security as a third party with a interest in the registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009).As seen earlier, the right to collateral security of each of the above right to collateral security was extinguished by the prescription, and as such