1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of this court's explanation for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: "580,000 won" of the first instance court No. 3, 11, and "580,000 won" of the third instance court No. 3, and "3,000 won" of the third instance court No. 3.

B. (2) The part of the “paragraph (2)” is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of the parts written by the following [the parts], and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Supplementary claim for the completion of the extinctive prescription] (2) The plaintiff asserted that the secured debt of the establishment of the mortgage of this case is subject to five years of extinctive prescription with commercial credit, and that the five-year extinctive prescription has expired from December 20, 1996, which is the due date of the instant agreement.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the claim secured by the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case is subject to the ten-year civil extinctive prescription, and that, before the lapse of ten years from December 20, 1996, E, a creditor, applied for a voluntary auction on other real estate provided as joint collateral for the claim under the agreement of this case before the expiration of ten years from December 20, 196.

(B) The judgment 1) As to whether the plaintiff can invoke the extinctive prescription of the secured claim of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case in this case, it is limited to the person who can assert it when the extinctive prescription has been completed, and since the person who can assert it is limited to the person who directly benefits from the extinction of the obligation by the extinctive prescription, the general creditor against the debtor can assert the extinctive prescription by subrogation of the debtor to the extent necessary to preserve his/her claim, and cannot assert the extinctive prescription in his/her own position as the creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da22676, Dec. 26, 1997). In light of the above legal principle, according to each of the statements and arguments in the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the whole purport of each of the land of