1. The defendant shall receive to B, on July 28, 1993, a machine such as Daegu District Court and its racing support, etc. with respect to the 185 square meters of land in racing city.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 1998, the Defendant registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”) with respect to the amount of 185 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real property”), which is owned by B, for the same day, based on a contract establishing a collateral for the same day. The Defendant completed the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”).

B. Meanwhile, on October 15, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a payment order against B to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 29.9% per annum from October 2, 2010 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 27,512,767 and the amount of KRW 9,930,000 among them, which was decided on November 9, 2010.” The above payment order was finalized on October 9, 2010.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim, each of the above evidence and the whole purport of the arguments, it is determined that the Defendant’s secured debt of this case against the Defendant B is an obligation with no fixed maturity for payment. Thus, the extinctive prescription has run since July 28, 1993, which appears to have been finally established, since the statute of limitations has run since July 28, 1993. Thus, it shall be deemed that the statute of limitations has expired around July 28, 2003 after ten years

Therefore, this case’s right to collateral security was also extinguished according to the nature of the mortgage. Thus, barring any special circumstance, B is entitled to claim cancellation of the right to collateral security as the owner of the instant real estate or the party to the contract establishing the right to collateral security, and the Defendant is obligated to cancel the instant right to collateral security upon the Plaintiff’s request subrogated to B determined as insolvent.

B. As to the Defendant’s defense 1, the Defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription of the above claim was interrupted, since the Defendant received interest from pro-Japanese B from time to time.