1. The defendant shall make a registration office of the head of Gwangju District Court in the Gu-Jancheon Branch for the non-party D with respect to the area of 674 square meters in the Gu-gun E, Jeonnam-gun.

1. "Basic facts" recorded in the separate sheet of the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 2 shall show the overall purport of the pleadings, respectively.

2. Determination:

A. We examine the determination of the cause of the claim, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the time period for payment of the secured claim under the registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the registration of the creation of superficies (hereinafter “registration of the instant right to collateral and the registration of superficies”) was fixed, the above secured claim shall be deemed a bond without setting the time period. A claim without setting the time period may be exercised from the time of its establishment, and therefore the extinctive prescription shall run from that time.

In addition, the above secured claim should be deemed to have been able to exercise at least the time from February 27, 2001, which was the date of the registration of creation of the right to collateral of this case and superficies, and as long as the ten years have elapsed thereafter, it is apparent that the above secured claim had already expired on February 27, 201, which was before the instant lawsuit, due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

Therefore, upon the plaintiff's request subrogated to D for the preservation of the claim, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da6342, Apr. 14, 201).

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that since the defendant continued to promise the repayment of the secured debt, since D, the defendant alleged that the extinctive prescription of the secured debt of this case and the secured debt of superficies was suspended, it is insufficient to view D as having approved the secured debt by continuously promising the repayment of the secured debt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion Plaintiff’s objection.