1. The defendant shall receive on May 14, 2003 from the plaintiff the Cheongyang District Court with respect to the size of 724 square meters prior to Chungcheongnamyang-gun, Chungcheongnamyang-gun.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 14, 2003, D completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 9,000,000 with respect to the land prior to the division of this case (hereinafter “land prior to the division of this case”) to the Defendant, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case”). (b)

D On October 21, 201, the instant land before subdivision was divided into 724 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 724 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) before Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and the instant land was divided into two square meters before E. On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 20, 201 with respect to the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the secured obligation of the Plaintiff’s establishment registration prior to the instant claim was extinguished by repayment or the completion of extinctive prescription, the establishment registration of the instant mortgage should be cancelled.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The secured claim of the instant right to collateral security is the Defendant’s right to claim the return of KRW 9,000,000 against D (hereinafter “instant claim”).

D) On April 20, 2005, the Defendant paid KRW 3,500,000 out of the above bonds, and KRW 2,203 square meters in lieu of the repayment of KRW 3,50,000 among the above bonds (hereinafter “F land in this case”).

(2) The Defendant urged D to repay the instant claim from around 2004 to the early 2007 and February 2008. As such, D expressed its intent to repay the said claim to the early 2007, and the Plaintiff was to pay the said obligation by subrogation around the beginning of 2013.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the above obligation was interrupted.

C. As alleged by the Plaintiff, we examine whether the instant claim, which is the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, has expired by prescription.

In this case, since the debt of this case is a debt with no fixed period of time, the extinctive prescription shall be from the date on which the right has occurred.