1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against B with the District Court 2013j.32, the iron War Court 2013, and received a payment order against B, stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 13,908,805, and any delay damages for KRW 6,689,849, out of the amount,” and the said payment order was finalized on February 27, 2013.

B. B is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list. On June 1, 1999, the Defendant created a mortgage-mortgage with the obligor B, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 20 million on the ground of the establishment of the contract for establishing the contract as of July 10, 1997, No. 8711, which was received by the Ki Government District Court’s registration office, as of the above building.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserted and determined that since the claim secured by the above right to collateral has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the defendant must cancel the above right to collateral, and the plaintiff, who is the creditor of B, sought the cancellation of the above right to collateral security against the defendant in subrogation of B.

Then, the defendant lent KRW 20 million to B on July 10, 1997, and the facts that the secured claim of the above secured claim of the right to collateral is the above secured claim of the right to collateral, and the facts that 10 years have elapsed from the above lending date are not disputed between the parties, or recognized by the evidence No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and witness B's testimony. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is reasonable.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless since the defendant agreed to repay the above loan claim.

On the other hand, the defendant's above assertion may be prejudicial to the waiver of extinctive prescription interest. According to the whole purport of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 5, witness Eul's testimony and pleading, it can be acknowledged that Eul prepared "written confirmation of extension of claim" or "written confirmation of fact" to the defendant's effect that he/she will repay the above loan claim to the defendant around 2008, 10 years after the lapse of 10 years from July 10, 1997, and around April 17, 2017, and June 2017, and in light of this, B above.