beta
Text
1. The defendant on December 4, 2002 with regard to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, on December 3, 2002, lent 20,000,000 won to the plaintiff on May 2, 2003 as the maturity date for reimbursement (hereinafter "loan Claim") and 20,000,000 won with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff to secure the above claim, and the registration of creation of a mortgage (the registration of creation of a mortgage prior to the Dong District Court, Dongwon District Court, Suwon District Office, and Office of Registry, and Office of Registry, 1961 of December 4, 2002; hereinafter "the registration of creation of a mortgage prior to the loan of this case") with respect to the real estate mentioned in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff as the debtor, may be recognized as having completed the statute of limitations for the loan of this case.
Therefore, since the registration of establishment of a mortgage of the instant case was invalidated upon the extinguishment of the secured debt, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage of the instant case.
2. The defendant's assertion asserts that the period of extinctive prescription of the secured debt of this case was interrupted since the defendant notified the plaintiff to continue to repay the loan, etc., and the plaintiff given a partial repayment of the debt to the defendant.
In this regard, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant continuously notified the Plaintiff of the performance of the obligation.
In addition, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 to the Defendant on September 19, 2006, which was the due date of the instant loan claims, after the due date of the instant loan claims. Therefore, even if the period of extinctive prescription for the instant loan claims is calculated based on the recognition of the obligation, it is apparent that ten years have passed prior to the instant lawsuit
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified, and it is so accepted as per Disposition.