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

A. On July 15, 1998, the Plaintiff registered the establishment of a mortgage over the Busan Shipping Daegu C site and ground buildings owned by the Defendant at the time to secure the claim of KRW 35 million against the Defendant.

B. On June 7, 2000, the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring real estate was cancelled following the sale of the above real estate in the voluntary auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 9 (Evidence 1) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 35 million won to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that since the obligation against the Plaintiff was established on July 15, 1998, since it was a general civil claim for ten years or commercial building lease deposit from the time when the right to collateral security was established on July 15, 1998, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Plaintiff was extinguished by the statute of limitations since it was a civil claim for ten years or more as a commercial claim from that time, even if the Defendant, around July 2005, approved the obligation by clarifying the intent of repayment to the Plaintiff.

Around July 2005, the Defendant expressed the Plaintiff’s intent that “if a situation occurs, the Plaintiff would wish to repay.” The fact is established by expressing that the Defendant, who is a party to the interruption of the extinctive prescription, would lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period, or his/her agent, is aware of the existence of the right (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da63193, Apr. 25, 2000). As such, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s obligation on or around July 2005, and thus suspended the extinctive prescription.

However, since the plaintiff's application for payment order was submitted on February 23, 2018, it was apparent that 10 years passed thereafter, the plaintiff's claim of KRW 35 million against the defendant was extinguished by prescription.

2.3.