1. On July 22, 1987, the Defendant filed a registration office with the Daegu District Court on the land size of 38,083 square meters in Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 29, 1978, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on the 20th day of the same month with respect to the 38,083 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On July 22, 1987, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage consisting of the maximum debt amount (7,500,000 won), the obligor D, and the mortgagee of a right to collateral security, with respect to the instant real estate, to the Defendant on July 22, 1987, for the purpose of securing the debt of the borrowed money (the debt of this case, September 22, 1987, hereinafter “the debt of this case”) or the debt of the borrowed money.

hereinafter the above establishment registration of a new mortgage is "the establishment registration of a new mortgage of this case" and "the right to collateral security of this case" is "the right to collateral security of this case."

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) D repaid the Defendant the instant loan obligation. 2) Even if it is assumed that the instant loan obligation was not repaid, the instant loan obligation expired upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant creation of a mortgage to the Plaintiff. B. 1) There is no evidence to acknowledge that D’s determination on the assertion of repayment has repaid the instant loan to the Defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's argument.

2) Determination as to the claim for the expiration of the extinctive prescription period is whether the Defendant did not exercise its right until ten years after September 22, 1987, when the due date was September 22, 1987, without any legal obstacle to the exercise of the instant loan claim.

Therefore, the claim for the loan of this case expired by the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and accordingly the right to collateral security of this case has expired by the appendant nature, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is the plaintiff.