근저당권말소
1. The defendant received on June 24, 2004 from the Daegu District Court's Gun Branch of the District Court with respect to real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 1, 2005, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff, regardless of whether it was before or after the change,”) rendered a judgment on February 1, 2005 that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 2,760,861 won and 2,578,000 won from September 12, 2004 to the date of full payment” and the above judgment was finalized on February 26, 2005.
(G) Daegu District Court 2004Gaso53151, hereinafter referred to as "Seoul District Court Decision"). (b)
On May 31, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a collateral on the attached list No. 1 of the attached list No. 2, which is the debtor B and the maximum debt amount of 100,000,000 won on June 24, 2004.
C. A debt based on the judgment of the previous suit against the Plaintiff in B is KRW 11,211,33 as of the closing date of the pleadings in this case = 2,760,861 won (2,578,000 x 4,273 days/365 x 28% per annum).
In addition, as of November 27, 2015, B bears the obligation of KRW 10,679,513 to Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. as of November 27, 2015, while there is no property or income other than the land indicated in the attached list.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case, which the plaintiff seeks cancellation of the registration of creation of a new mortgage by subrogation of B, is unlawful, since the period of ten years from February 26, 2005, which was the date when the plaintiff's claim based on the judgment prior to the previous lawsuit against B was expired after the lapse of ten years from February 2
As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, it is apparent that 10 years elapsed from February 26, 2005, which was the date of the judgment in the previous suit as of the date of the closing of argument in this case. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 4 and 6, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff seized and provisionally seized B’s property as the obligor’s claim based on the above judgment prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, as follows.