1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B against the Jeonju District Court No. 2012Ga1414, and the above court rendered a favorable judgment against B on March 28, 2002 that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,701,207 and any delay damages for the payment of KRW 26,902,193,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On July 19, 197, C completed the registration of creation of collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B on July 19, 1997 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Dosan District Court No. 6586, Jul. 19, 1997, as the Dosan District Court No. 20,000 won, the maximum debt amount, and B, the debtor.

C. After that, D completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security of this case on September 17, 2008 due to the transfer of confirmed claim, and again the defendant completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security of this case on April 14, 2009.

On the other hand, B is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 4 evidence, result of an order to submit taxation information to the head of the Jeonsan-si, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured debt of this case expired after the lapse of ten years from May 25, 1998, when the secured debt became due, and thus, the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the instant case ought to be cancelled upon the Plaintiff’s request by the insolvent debtor B.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements Nos. 2 and 4-1 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, C may recognize the fact that the registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case was completed in order to lend and secure a loan of KRW 20 million to B on May 25, 1997 by setting the due date for payment of KRW 20 million on May 25, 1998.

According to the above facts, it is clear that ten years have elapsed from May 25, 1998, which is the maturity date of the above loan claim as of the date of the closing of argument in this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as the interruption of extinctive prescription, the above loan claim shall be extinctive prescription.