1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 2, 1985 with respect to the portion of 1/4 of the land of Jung-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”) among the 1/4 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 12, 2002 with respect to the portion of 3/4 of the land before the said subdivision.

B. On the other hand, on February 4, 2003, the Deceased borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant on February 4, 2003 at the interest rate of 2% per month, and on February 3, 2004, the due date for repayment was determined as of February 3, 2004, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the share of KRW 1/4 out of the land before the instant partition as security as of February 5, 2003, Incheon District Court No. 6432, Feb. 5, 20

C. After that, in the case of partition of co-owned property in Incheon District Court 2002Gadan20383, the land prior to the instant partition was divided into CJ 716.8m2 in Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) and E-gu, Incheon Jung-gu, 238.9m2 (hereinafter “the ownership transfer registration on November 21, 2003”), and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring land was transcribed on the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the secured obligation of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case was due on February 3, 2004, and the prescription has expired ten years after the date of the instant lawsuit, and thus, the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case should be cancelled. However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the witness F’s testimony, the deceased paid USD 3,00 to the Defendant through F, a son, as interest on the above secured obligation, around April 15, 2009. According to the above facts of recognition, the statute of limitations was interrupted due to the Defendant’s approval of the obligation of the deceased at that time, and ten years have not elapsed since the date of the instant lawsuit.