1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. This Court was made on April 1, 2016 with respect to cases of suspending compulsory execution.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff reported on the loan advertisement of Dae Ho Kewd Co., Ltd., a credit service company, and became aware of the Defendant, who is an employee in charge of real estate security loans, after having given the above company a consultation telephone for real estate security loans.

B. On February 24, 2003, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to the Defendant as to the real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) on the basis of the maximum debt amount of KRW 45 million and KRW 18 million.

C. On November 29, 2004, the Plaintiff was issued a business registration certificate for interior fishery with the trade name “C” from the head of Gangnam Tax Office (the location of business place: Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D).

The plaintiff paid KRW 7 million on July 6, 2006 to the defendant who did not pay the remainder of the principal and interest to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 1-2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was a merchant who operated the artificial park business at the time of February 24, 2003, and the defendant also was a merchant who operated the credit business as the head of the counseling office belonging to the Daeho Kyke Co., Ltd. as the credit business company.

Therefore, the instant loan claims are commercial claims, and the statute of limitations expired as of July 6, 201 with the lapse of five years from July 6, 201, which was the last repayment date, from July 6, 2006. Therefore, the establishment registration of the instant loan claims as secured claims ought to be cancelled according to the subsidiary nature of the security right.

B. 1) Whether the Plaintiff’s act of borrowing is a commercial activity is a person who runs a business by a merchant through stores or other similar facilities, even if the Plaintiff did not engage in a commercial activity, the provisions of the General Rules on Commercial Activities, such as Commercial Extinctive Prescription, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the act of constructive merchants under Article 5(1) (Article 66). Meanwhile, a person who prepares for a commercial activity prior to commencement of a commercial activity which is an object of business, is willing to engage in a commercial activity.