1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case”) that was completed at KRW 200 million with respect to each real estate indicated in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Gwangju District Court, Naju registry, the Jeju District Court, as of March 13, 2001, shall be revoked since the extinctive prescription has expired since the Plaintiff’s debt was completed, even if the Plaintiff did not have any debt against the Defendant or had any debt.

B. The Defendant’s assertion ①, upon the Plaintiff’s request, lent an amount equivalent to KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff from July 1997 to the funds for the aggregate extraction business. When the Plaintiff renounced its business on March 7, 2001, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 250 million from the Plaintiff on March 7, 2001 and completed the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage. As such, there exists the Defendant’s secured claim against the Plaintiff, and ② even if the said secured claim was completed around March 17, 201, even if the extinctive prescription period expired around March 17, 201, the Plaintiff’s secured claim becomes extinct due to the waiver of the benefit of prescription.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether there exists a secured claim of the right to collateral security (1) is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the obligation to be secured and reserving the determination of an obligation in the future. Since the right to secure a certain limit is established for the purpose of securing a number of unspecified claims arising from continuous business relations in the future, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there must be a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 2011) is a part of the assertion of its existence (see