1. The defendant received on March 4, 2004 from the Daegu District Court registry office with respect to real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate on the same day.

B. On March 3, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant to secure the obligation to pay the remainder of KRW 4 million under the instant contract, and on March 4, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security right to the Defendant with the maximum debt amount of the instant real estate amount of KRW 5 million, the mortgagee of a collateral security right, and the debtor as the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant collateral security”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff set up the instant right to collateral security against the Defendant to secure the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder amounting to KRW 4 million. However, around June 2004, the Plaintiff paid the remainder amount to the Defendant’s employees.

Even if it is not so, the secured obligation of the instant mortgage was extinguished by the completion of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant did not pay the remainder to the defendant until now.

Around March 2012, the defendant filed a claim for the payment of the remaining amount to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff prepared a written agreement with the collection company delegated by the defendant.

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the cause of the claim is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured debt of this case was extinguished by the repayment, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion is not accepted. 2) Since the Defendant sold the real estate of this case to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2003 and got the registration of ownership transfer, the Defendant’s remaining claim against the Plaintiff became due and due and due to the fact that the Defendant’s remaining claim against the Plaintiff became due and due, five years as commercial claim.