A. The Plaintiff is a creditor who holds a local tax claim of KRW 18,55,160 against Nonparty A.

B. On October 8, 1992, A borrowed KRW 50 million from B on October 8, 1992, and completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on October 8, 1992 as the receipt of the maximum debt amount of KRW 65 million on October 8, 1992 by the Gwangju District Court No. 26636, Oct. 8, 1992, B completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the Defendant on September 2, 1999.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1

2. Determination

A. The fact that A created the instant right to collateral security for the security of a pecuniary obligation against B; the fact that the Defendant acquired the instant right to collateral security after completing the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security after the Defendant acquired the said right to collateral security; and there is no proof of assertion as to the existence of a special agreement on the fulfillment period of a pecuniary obligation against B, it is reasonable to deem that the extinctive prescription of the instant right to collateral security should run from the date on which the said pecuniary obligation occurred; and as such, it is apparent that the period of extinctive prescription of the instant right to collateral security has run from the point of time ten years elapsed since

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case to A.

B. On the other hand, the defendant urged A to repay the debt from time to time and promised A to repay the debt at that time, and there is no evidence to acknowledge A to have approved A's debt prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. On the other hand, A's certificate No. 1 submitted by the defendant is a content of approving A's debt after the expiration of the extinctive prescription.