The cancellation of mortgage;

Whether the extinctive prescription of the instant obligation has expired

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

2017 Gaz. 202392 Doz. cancellation of mortgage

Park*

***********1

October 26, 2017

November 16, 2017

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

가. 피고 #### 주식회사는 대전지방법원 2006. 7. 31. 접수 제97540호로 마친 근

procedures for registration of cancellation of registration of establishment of a mortgage;

B. The defendant Republic of Korea accepted the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage mentioned in paragraph (1) of Article 1

H. H. H.D.’s declaration of intention

2. 소송비용 중 원고와 피고 #### 주식회사 사이에 생긴 부분은 피고 #### 주

The food company and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고는 2006. 7. 31. 피고 #### 주식회사(이하, '피고 ####'이라 한다)에게, 피고 ####이 원고 운영의 @@@@에 물품을 공급하는 계속적 물품거래계약으로 발생하게 되는 물품대금채무를 담보하기 위하여, 별지 목록 기재 각 부동산에 관하여 근저당권자 피고 ####, 채무자 원고, 채권최고액 1,000만 원으로 하는 주문 제1의 가.항 기재 근저당권설정등기(이하, '이 사건 근저당권'이라 한다)를 마쳐 주었다.

나. 원고는 2008. 11. 30.경 피고 ####과의 위 계속적 물품거래를 중단하였다.

C. Defendant Republic of Korea seized the instant collateral security right claim on August 10, 2016, and August 16, 2016

The registration of seizure is completed.

Facts that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, testimony and pleading of witness Kim Jong-soo.

The purport of the whole

2. 피고 ####에 대한 판단

이 사건 근저당권의 피담보채권인 피고 ####의 원고에 대한 물품대금채권은 상

Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act takes three years of extinctive prescription for goods sold by a person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 77Da2463, Mar. 28, 1978; 77Da2463, Jan. 21, 1992; 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992).

이에 따르면, 원고와 피고 #### 사이에 계속적 물품거래계약으로 기하여 발생한

물품대금채권은 늦어도 원고와 피고 #### 사이에 물품거래를 중단한 시점으로부터

3년이 경과한 2011. 11. 30. 소멸시효완성으로 소멸하였다고 할 것이므로, 피고 ####은 원고에게 이 사건 근저당권설정등기의 말소등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다.

3. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea

Where claims secured by a mortgage are seized, such claims shall be registered in addition to the registration of creation of a mortgage;

The purpose of recording and registering the seizure of the secured claim is when the secured claim of the right to collateral is seized;

The seizure of the right to collateral security, which is a subordinate right based on the incidental nature of the right to collateral security, shall become invalid;

Since the seizure of security claims is intended to disclose the seizure, there is no secured claim of the right to collateral security.

such seizure order shall be null and void, and in case of cancellation of the right to collateral security, the seizure authority shall

Any third party who has an interest in registration and has expressed his/her intention to accept the cancellation of the right to collateral security.

(1) Article 20 of the former Act provides that “The term “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term”” under Article 10 of the former Act.

Since the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security becomes invalid due to expiration of the statute of limitations, cancellation thereof.

As seen earlier, the seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea also becomes effective since the seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea is subject to the claim for which the statute of limitations has expired. Thus, Defendant Republic of Korea is the root of this case.

A third party interested in a registration with respect to the cancellation of a party right, who is obligated to express his/her consent.

section 1.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted:

It is so decided as per Disposition.