1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C borrowed 15 million won from the Defendant on February 28, 1998 without fixing the due date, and on February 28, 1998, C completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land owned by the mortgagee, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount, 15 million won, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a claim against C for the payment order for the amount of KRW 238,619,833 and the amount of KRW 90,540,119 among the amount of reimbursement 238,619,83 and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 9, 2014 to the date of full payment. On November 2, 2014, C did not file any objection despite the receipt of the above payment order, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on November 18, 2014.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Defendant’s right to collateral security on the instant land as to the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was fully repaid or extinguished by prescription, the establishment registration of collateral security on the instant land should also be cancelled by registration invalidation of the cause.

Therefore, as long as the plaintiff, who is the creditor of C, seeks the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage on behalf of C, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above establishment

3. Determination

A. There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s loan claims against C were repaid due to the repayment of the secured claim, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s loan claims against C were repaid. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this is without merit.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s loan claim against C is a claim for which the maturity period has not been fixed, as long as the Defendant’s loan claim against C was determined on the ground of the lapse of the prescription period, the extinctive prescription period has run from the early February 1, 1998. Thus, the above loan claim is extinctive prescription from the early February 10, 2008, at least ten years after the lapse of ten years from the said claim.