A. The Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the instant collateral security”) with respect to the area of 347.2m2m2 and D woodland 889.7m2 (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) in Yongnam-gun, Youngnam-gun, the Seoul District Court of Gwangju District as the receipt of No. 9498 on May 20, 199, and as of May 19, 1999, the maximum amount of claims 4,000,000 won, the debtor, the obligor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 27, 2020 with respect to each of the instant real estate on April 27, 2020 by reason of donation on April 20, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 2's purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the secured claim of the right to collateral security of this case has expired, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of the right to collateral security of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the secured debt amount of the instant right to collateral security is KRW 4 million, but the actual amount of the secured debt amount of the instant right to collateral security is KRW 9 million, among which the obligor paid the secured debt amount, KRW 2 million on December 31, 2001, and KRW 1 million on November 1, 2002.

With regard to the plaintiff's assertion of extinction of prescription, the defendant and the debtor are in conflict with the defendant, and the debtor make a lump sum repayment at a certain time, or if the debtor fails to make a full payment, he will transfer the ownership of each of the real estate of this case, regardless of the land in Hesan, and the plaintiff recognized the secured obligation of the mortgage of this case to the police officer during May 2020 and had the plaintiff make a repayment. Thus, the defendant cannot implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the mortgage of this case before he is paid 6 million won as the secured obligation of the mortgage of this case.

3. From November 2002, the Defendant asserted that part of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was repaid, in light of the overall purport of the evidence presented in the judgment as to the issues.