근저당권말소
1. As to the real estate indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff
A. The Gangseo-gu Seoul Southern District Court Registry on June 1994
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 1, 1994, the Plaintiff agreed to borrow KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant as KRW 200,000 on December 1, 1994 on the due date.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan obligation”). B.
Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a right to collateral security”) (hereinafter “registration of the right to collateral security”) against the Defendant on June 1, 1995, as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Seoul Southern District Court’s Gangseo District Court’s receipt on June 2, 1994, under the Seoul Southern District Court’s 53560, the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of creation of a right to collateral security”) was completed against the Defendant, as indicated in the order, in order to prevent the decline in the value of collateral due to the Plaintiff’s residence in the instant real estate on which the right to collateral security was established, and as indicated in the order, the Seoul Southern District Court’s Gangseo District Court’s 53562, Jun. 2, 1995 (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a right to collateral security”).
(C) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not actually exchange the key money.
The fact that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 6,00,000 among the loan obligations of this case is the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. According to the above facts, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis of this case is ultimately to secure the loan obligations of this case. Since the loan obligations of this case were extinguished by the completion of the prescription on December 1, 2004, which was 10 years from December 1, 1994, the maturity date, and thus, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis of this case should be cancelled
(Article 369 of the Civil Act and Supreme Court Decision 201Da6342 Decided April 14, 201). 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.