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

A. On April 26, 2006, C completed the registration of share transfer on April 20, 2006 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share 16.53/59,338.36 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the obligor C, based on the contract to establish a contract on June 4, 1992 with respect to 16.53/59,338.36 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet on July 8, 1992 (C owned shares).

(hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the registration of establishment of a new mortgage should be cancelled on the ground that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has already ceased to exist due to the completion of prescription.

In light of the fact that the right to collateral security is guaranteed within the scope of the maximum debt amount with respect to an unspecified claim whose future increase or decrease or a decrease in the mortgage in the future, the additional nature is not required unlike the ordinary mortgage. Thus, the establishment registration of collateral security may be cancelled only when the secured claim becomes final upon the arrival of the settlement term or the application for compulsory auction by a third party, etc. and the secured

However, the Plaintiff did not have any assertion as to the cause for which the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security was established and the starting point of the extinctive prescription of the secured claim as such, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without further examination.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.