1. On February 3, 2003, the Seoul Southern District Court's Yeongdeungpo-gu registry office was received on the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 3, 2003, E completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the real estate as indicated in the separate sheet, which was owned by F on February 3, 2003 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the debtor F and the maximum debt amount of KRW 42,00,000.

B. On March 23, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in KRW 214,500,000 from F, and concluded a sales contract with F to repay the entire amount of the secured debt to the creditor at the time of payment of the remainder as to the instant collateral, but only paid the remainder after deducting the maximum debt amount of the instant mortgage from the maximum debt amount of the instant mortgage at the time of payment of the remainder, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on June 9, 2005.

C. E died on March 10, 2004, and as inheritor, Defendant B, Defendant C, and D, a spouse.

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

2. Determination

A. Since a third party who acquired real estate for which the registration of establishment of a mortgage for mortgage security was completed and completed the registration of establishment of ownership is a person who obtains direct profits from the extinction of the secured claim of the relevant mortgage, even if the debtor is not the debtor of the claim secured by the mortgage, the extinctive prescription of the secured claim can be invoked. The right to directly use the extinctive prescription of the beneficiary is not based on the right to invoke the extinctive prescription of the debtor, and cannot be exercised only by subrogation of the independent debtor, and even if the domestic debtor can be deemed to waive the prescription benefits for other reasons, the waiver of the prescription benefits is nothing more than that of the relative effect, and thus the transferee of the secured

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 195Da1488 delivered on July 11, 1995