1. On September 29, 1989, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff is registered with the original original district court jointly with the original district court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 29, 1989, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage security”) with regard to each real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) with regard to the Defendant, the Changwon District Court Joint District Court No. 10552, Sept. 29, 1989, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 8.5 million (hereinafter “mortgage”).

B. At present, each of the instant real estate is owned by Nonparty B.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's cause of claim is as seen earlier on September 29, 1989. Since it is apparent that the establishment date of the claim secured by the right to collateral of this case was earlier than September 29, 1989, and the ten-year statute of limitations has already elapsed from the establishment date of the above secured claim at the time of the lawsuit of this case, the claim secured by the right to collateral of this case had already expired prior to the institution of this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in this case to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. (1) As to the determination on the waiver of the statute of limitations interest (1), the Defendant asserted that “The Defendant has filed an application with the Changwon District Court for a payment order seeking the reimbursement of the loan claim, which is the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, against the Plaintiff, under the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2015 tea117, and the Plaintiff’s failure to raise any objection to the said payment order on June 8, 2015, which is the expiration of the statute of limitations, may be deemed to have waived the statute of limitations interest (i.e., impliedly).”

(2) On the other hand, the waiver of extinctive prescription interest is a single act with the other party, and expressed explicitly or implicitly the intent not to receive any legal benefit due to the completion of extinctive prescription. However, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection upon receipt of the said payment order.