근저당권말소
1. The Defendants are the former Jeju District Court’s office with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 1/2 out of 1494m2 of the 1494m2 forest forest Franchi-gun.
1. The facts of the cause of the instant claim asserted by the Plaintiff are as follows.
The transfer registration of ownership was made on December 5, 1991 with the joint ownership of G and H on December 5, 1991.
B. On March 11, 1994, Defendant B and Nonparty I completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter the “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) under No. 2889 on the same day by the Jeonju District Court’s Net Chang District Court’s registration office. The debtor of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is H, and the maximum debt amount was stated as KRW 25 million.
C. On September 6, 2001, J completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on August 31, 2001 with respect to the total portion of the above real estate on September 6, 2001, and thereafter on September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on September 6, 2017.
The secured obligation of the establishment of a mortgage in the instant case was extinguished by the lapse of ten years after the establishment of a mortgage.
E. Of the above collateral security holders, I died on May 16, 2004, and his heir is Defendant D and E, who is the wife, Defendant C and A.
2. As to the above facts of the cause of the claim, Defendant C and E are not present on the date of pleading without submitting a written answer, and thus, they shall be deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act. As to Defendant B and D, it may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the pleading as to Defendant B and D,
Thus, the secured debt of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case was extinguished by the completion of extinctive prescription.
Therefore, the defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage to the plaintiff.
3. On this ground, Defendant B asserted that the extinctive prescription has not yet expired since he had a right to collateral security, but the extinctive prescription is not interrupted or suspended solely on the ground that the establishment registration of collateral security was completed.