2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 15, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant engaging in the business of real estate development, sale in lots, lease, management, construction, etc. At the time, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to the effect that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 75 million from the Plaintiff and issued it to the Plaintiff. As a security, the Daegu District Court completed the registration of the Daegu District Court on September 15, 2006 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 75,550,000,000 as the maximum debt amount of KRW 5,550,000 as the debtor, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. After that, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which became the Defendant, as the registration office of the Daegu District Court on August 1, 2007, under the Act No. 38115, the maximum debt amount of KRW 24.5 million, the obligor, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee of the right to collateral security.

C. Meanwhile, on September 6, 2013, the Daegu District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant real estate upon the application of C and D, a senior mortgagee, rather than the Plaintiff, and upon the sale of the instant real estate to F in the auction procedure, the registration of creation of each of the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff was cancelled.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 2 and 3-1, 2, and Evidence Nos. 4 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is deemed to have agreed to pay KRW 100 million to the plaintiff after borrowing KRW 50 million from the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 100 million to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's defense 1) asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case was extinguished after the lapse of five years of extinctive prescription with commercial claim. 2) The fact that the defendant is a company engaged in real estate development, real estate development, sale, lease, management, construction, etc. is acknowledged as above, and the purport of the whole arguments is as follows.