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

D On March 9, 1996, the defendant completed the additional registration of partial transfer of the right to collateral security, such as the statement in the purport of the claim due to the transfer on the same day.

2. As to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserts that the right to collateral security, which was acquired on March 9, 2006, was extinguished because the Defendant did not exercise its claim within 10 years from the date the Defendant acquired part of the right to collateral security from D, and sought cancellation of the said supplementary registration from the Defendant.

In principle, there is no benefit in filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation of only additional registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security, and there is benefit in filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the additional registration on the ground that the principal registration of the right to collateral security is valid only on the ground that there is no reason for invalidation.

[Supplementary registration] (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da15412, 15429, Jun. 10, 2005) does not have an independent priority number as a registration that partially changes its identity with the principal registration, while maintaining its identity, and the number of additional marks shall be stated below the number using the priority number of the existing registration as it is.

In other words, the order of priority registration is dependent on the main registration for the purpose of holding the order of priority of main registration.

The supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant was partially transferred, and the scope of the right is changed not only to the subject of the right but also to the scope of the right. However, it is merely a transfer of the priority effect while maintaining the consistency with part of the right to collateral security in

In other words,