beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1 against F) on September 200 and October 2002, 200, the Plaintiff concluded a credit guarantee agreement with other Dwork Electronic Co., Ltd. to obtain a loan from a financial institution, and F Co., Ltd. guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement. 2) The above company lost its profits by delinquency in paying the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff on July 2003, and the Plaintiff paid the said company’s debt by subrogation pursuant to the above credit guarantee agreement, and acquired F’s claim for indemnity amounting to KRW 480,667,321.
B. On August 13, 2002, F prepared a loan certificate with "80 million won for rent, 1.5% for interest, and 6 months from August 13, 2002" to the Defendant on August 13, 2002 (No. 4, hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case").
(2) On August 19, 2002, F completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant as indicated in its ownership in order to secure the Defendant’s claim for the instant lease, the F completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 2-1, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, as the statute of limitations expired, F’s obligee of the right to collateral security of this case, the Plaintiff sought cancellation against the Defendant on behalf of F.
B. As to the extinction of the statute of limitations on the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security, the fact that the Defendant created the instant right to collateral security in order to secure the instant loan obligation is identical to the foregoing, and it is clear that ten years have passed since February 13, 2003, which is the due date for the instant loan obligation.
Therefore, the lease claim of this case expired by prescription, and the secured claim of this case is extinguished by prescription.