1. The defendant received on April 16, 1993 from the Daegu District Court Youngcheon Registry on real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The establishment B of the right to collateral security is the pre-owner of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B on April 16, 1993, on the instant real estate, the Defendant created a collateral (hereinafter “instant collateral”) causing the debtor’s “C” and the maximum debt amount of 9.9 million won with respect to the instant real estate.

B. The Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership from October 1, 200, and purchased the instant real estate from B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 11, 200.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the mortgage of this case does not exist, and even if the secured debt exists, the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired, and thus, the registration of creation of mortgage of this case should be cancelled.

In this regard, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant created the instant right to collateral security while making a life-sustaining transaction, and that the Plaintiff has a claim of KRW 81,620,217.

B. Determination of the right to collateral security is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), and is established with the aim of securing a certain limit in future settlement period. Thus, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, there is a legal act establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proving whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act)

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). In general, the evidence submitted alone alone constitutes a secured claim.