근저당권말소
1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is Daejeon District Court.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) completed the registration of creation of a collateral (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) against the real estate indicated in the separate sheet as the maximum debt amount No. 19701, Sept. 19, 197, as the Daejeon District Court Order No. 19701, Sept. 19, 199, regarding the real estate in the separate sheet, to secure the right to claim for the purchase of goods against the Plaintiff who carried on an individual business with the trade name of “D”.
B. Defendant C applied for the seizure of the instant mortgage claim against the Plaintiff by the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court (2008TTT2328) on June 26, 2008. On the same day, the seizure order was issued on June 26, 2008, and the supplementary registration of the seizure was completed regarding the instant mortgage.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading
2. The registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case should be cancelled inasmuch as the secured obligation of this case was repaid or extinctive prescription was completed as the cause of the claim (the plaintiff's assertion) was met, and the defendant C must express its intention of acceptance in cancelling the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case.
3. Determination
A. As to whether the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security was fully repaid, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely with the statement of evidence No. 1 and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.
B. Next, we examine whether the extinctive prescription has expired with respect to the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security.
In addition to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant C received a seizure and collection order against the plaintiff of the defendant company under the Daejeon District Court's 2008TTTT249 on January 18, 2008. The plaintiff and the defendant company are recognized to have suspended transactions around that time. The defendant's claim against the plaintiff for the price of goods against the plaintiff is three years as stipulated in Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code.