1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, the title holder of each real estate listed in the separate list of basic facts (hereinafter “instant real estate”) completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) against the Defendant on October 2, 1991, with respect to the instant real estate as the grounds for the collateral security contract rendered on October 2, 1991, for the establishment of a mortgage on the said real estate, the amount of maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the right to collateral security of this case was established by a false conspiracy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to avoid compulsory execution of the instant real estate. Even if not, the right to collateral security of this case was established to secure it upon borrowing money from the Defendant on October 2, 1991. Since the above secured obligation had been extinguished by the statute of limitations more than 10 years since it had already been established at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security of this case, the Defendant is liable to cancel the instant right to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In light of the circumstances where the Defendant held the certificate of registration of the instant right to collateral security, etc., when considering the fact that the Defendant was holding the certificate of registration of the instant right to collateral security, the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant right to collateral security was established by means of a false agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise. 2) The judgment of the claim for the completion of extinctive prescription refers to a mortgage which is established by reserving the confirmation of the obligation in the future. In this case, the extinction or transfer of the obligation until the secured obligation is determined does not affect the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7176, May 24, 2002); and the Plaintiff on October 2, 1991.