1. The plaintiff, and the defendant B shall register with the Daejeon District Court's Seosan Branch on May 24, 2006 as to the 3351 square meters of forest C, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and the registration of Seosan Branch Office.

1. There is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 28, 1998 with respect to the forest land C, 3351 square meters (hereinafter "the forest of this case"). ② The plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant Eul side, and ② completed the registration of the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court and the registration of the establishment of the creditor Eul's right to collateral security (hereinafter "mortgage of this case") on May 24, 2006 with the maximum debt amount of 18 million won and the registration of the establishment of the creditor Eul's right to collateral security (hereinafter "mortgage of this case"), and ③ on May 25, 2020 after the expiration of 14 years thereafter, the defendant Republic of Korea seized the maximum debt amount of the secured debt of this case and accepted the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case as the supplementary registration No. 18 million won on May 36, 20205.

According to the above facts, the secured claim of this case was established on May 24, 2006, which was at the time of the registration of creation of the above secured right, and was able to exercise its right, and the extinctive prescription of the above secured claim was extinguished on May 24, 2016, which was ten years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period from around the time of the registration of creation of the above secured right, and the seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea and its subsequent additional registration is invalid because the secured claim of this case was already extinguished upon the expiration of prescription period, and it is not effective since it was against the secured claim of this case, which was not yet extinguished upon the completion of prescription period.

Therefore, Defendant B performed the procedure for cancellation registration on May 24, 2016 with respect to the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the instant establishment on the ground of the expiration of extinctive prescription on May 24, 2016, and Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to express its consent with respect to the registration procedure for cancellation

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.