1. The defendant shall receive on May 29, 2001 from the Jeonju District Court, the Go Chang District Court, the Go Chang Branch Registry, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

The party's assertion and the key issue of the instant case was that the credit card company, the main point of which was the plaintiff's assertion, was the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2003Da35636, May 23, 2012, based on the payment order order of the credit card use payment case of the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2003Da35636, and transferred the said claim to the plaintiff (ex officio) on June 21, 2013, and the plaintiff (ex officio) transferred the said claim to the plaintiff (ex officio) on January 26, 2018 while the instant lawsuit is pending.

B concluded a contract to establish a collateral security with the Defendant on May 29, 2001 regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and on the ground of this, the former District Court rendered a registration of the establishment of the collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000,000, B, and the debtor and the mortgagee as the Defendant on May 29, 2001. However, the claim secured by the instant collateral security expired ten years after the date of establishment of the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral”).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s acquiring intervenor seeks cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case against the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff as the obligee B.

The summary of the defendant's argument was that the defendant lent KRW 50,000,000 to B and obtained the establishment of the right to collateral of this case as a collateral. Since B obtained the above loan debt verbally, the extinctive prescription was interrupted.

Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to cancel the registration of establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case.

After all, the key issue of the instant case is whether the extinctive prescription of the said obligation has been interrupted by approving B’s loan obligations equivalent to KRW 50,000,000 against the Defendant, which is the secured obligation of the instant collateral security.

As shown in the ground that B, after the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, obtained oral approval of the above loan obligations every year, the Defendant was absent from office on the date of pleading after the submission of the evidence.