근저당권말소
1. The Defendant shall each apply to the Plaintiff with respect to the land of 188 square meters in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun, and D forest land of 28,066 square meters in Jeonju-gun.
1. In full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract with the defendant on August 22, 1997 with regard to the size of 188 square meters and D forest land No. 2866 square meters owned by the defendant and the plaintiff in the Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, the plaintiff, as a mortgagee, the defendant, and the maximum debt amount of 25 million won. On August 23, 1997, the plaintiff completed the registration for establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter "registration for establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case") under the name of the defendant under Article 76900 of the indictment of the Jeonju District Court on August 23, 1997.
2. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the due date for the secured claim in the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was fixed. Thus, the above secured claim shall be deemed to be a claim without the fixed deadline, and since a claim without the fixed deadline may be exercised from the time of its establishment, the extinctive prescription shall run from that time.
Therefore, it should be deemed that the secured debt of this case was able to be exercised from August 23, 1997, which was the date of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case, at the latest, and that the ten years have passed thereafter. Thus, the above secured debt of this case was already extinguished by the completion of prescription around August 23, 2007, which was the date of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case, and the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case should be cancelled due to the nature of the secured mortgage of this case, because no secured debt exists.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.