1. The defendant received on May 3, 1993 from the Daegu District Court Branch Branch on real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Case summary and judgment

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The registration of creation of the instant real estate was completed with respect to the instant real estate under the Daegu District Court’s Mapo-gu District Court Branch Branching 45,000,000 won with respect to the maximum debt amount as of May 3, 1993, and the obligor C, C, and D, which are the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant right to collateral security”). On May 22, 1998, the registration of creation of the instant right to collateral security was completed on the ground of contract transfer as of May 21, 1998. At least, the registration of alteration of the right to collateral security was completed on the ground of the transfer as of May 21, 1998. At least the fact that there was no dispute between the parties or that the period of repayment for the instant obligation has already arrived at the time of the Defendant’

B. According to the above facts, it is determined that at least the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security had already been extinguished by the ten-year extinctive prescription period, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the instant right to collateral security to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate,

C. As to this, the Defendant asserts that, among the fact that C, a secured debtor of the instant right to collateral security, agreed to waive, extend or increase the extinctive prescription benefits to creditors D, or acknowledged the relevant debt, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since it became aware of the fact that C was transferred the said claim from D (the benefit of extinctive prescription is waived, the extinctive prescription is extended or aggravated, or the progress of the extinctive prescription is suspended) or the Plaintiff acquired the said obligation from C.

However, the above arguments by the defendant are not sufficient to regard them as grounds for preventing the completion of extinctive prescription of the secured debt of this case against the plaintiff, or there is no evidence to acknowledge them. Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.