1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2002, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

The plaintiff is a creditor of indemnity against C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there is no secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, or that the extinctive prescription has expired on October 22, 2012, and asserts that the extinctive prescription has expired on October 22, 2012, and seeks cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the said right by subrogation of C.

On the other hand, if the obligor approved the obligation after the completion of the extinctive prescription, it can be presumed that the obligor has renounced its benefit with the knowledge of the completion of the prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da4796, May 22, 1992). In the event the extinctive prescription has expired, the general obligee against the obligor may assert the extinctive prescription by subrogation of the obligor to the extent necessary to preserve his/her claim, and it cannot be independently asserted in the position

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da109500 Decided May 10, 2012). However, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading in subparagraph 1, it is recognized that C prepared and executed a written statement of performance that “A borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant on March 10, 2016, and would repay the principal amount of KRW 20 million by 20 million.”

According to this, it is reasonable to view that C, the debtor, has renounced the prescription benefits after the expiration of the statute of limitations on the loan claim, which is the secured claim of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case

Therefore, the plaintiff subrogated to C cannot independently claim the completion of the extinctive prescription of the secured claim secured by the instant right to collateral security. Thus, the plaintiff's above.