1. The defendant shall receive on September 19, 1998 from the plaintiff the Daejeon District Court with respect to the size of 274m2 in Geumsan-gun E, Geumsan-gun.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2009, the Plaintiff received an order for payment from the Daejeon District Court Decision 2009jj154 against F to “F to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 8,741,973 and any delay delay damages for KRW 8,643,533 among them.” The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On the other hand, on September 19, 1998, F created the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) on the basis of the contract on September 18, 1998 with respect to the size of 274 square meters owned by it, the maximum amount of claims nine million won, the debtor F, and the mortgagee as the defendant of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”).

C. The F died on February 20, 2010, and his spouse G and children H, and I inherited F’s property on April 22, 2010, the Daejeon District Court’s Family Branch Branch 2010Mo408.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the period of prescription expired since the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security was ten years from September 18, 1998, which was the date of the contract to establish the said right to collateral security.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the right to collateral security in this case on behalf of the F's heir.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant continued to demand the F or his heir to repay the above secured debt, and that the F et al. cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim, since the statute of limitations has been interrupted by approving the debt.

The recognition of an obligation as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription shall be established by expressing that the obligor who is a party to the benefit of prescription, is aware of the existence of the right to the person who is the party to the benefit of prescription, and the method of indication does not require any form, and it is possible to do so in an implied manner without necessarily requiring any explicit form.