1. On December 7, 1988, the Defendant received the Chuncheon District Court Decision No. 33455 regarding the real estate stated in the attached list from the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and there is no counter-proof.

On December 7, 198, Nonparty D completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of establishment of the instant real estate”) with respect to the real estate recorded in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) against Nonparty D on December 6, 1988 by Nonparty 16,000,000 won for the maximum debt amount on the ground of the contract concluded on December 6, 1988, with Nonparty 3455, which was signed by the Chuncheon District Court.

B. On June 22, 1993, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on the ground of donation on June 22, 1993.

C. Nonparty D died on June 25, 2015, and the Defendant, a child, succeeded to Nonparty D.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case should be cancelled, since the secured debt of this case was repaid or its extinctive prescription was completed.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the secured obligation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case was repaid.

Next, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the starting date of the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation of this case was December 6, 198, which was the date of the contract to establish the collateral obligation of this case, as the starting date of the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation of this case. Since it is apparent that ten years have passed since the expiration date of the extinctive prescription of the claim under Article 162(1) of the Civil Act, the contract to establish the mortgage of this case was terminated as the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

If so, the non-party who created the right to collateral security of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case is deceased.