1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the defendant around May 23, 1998 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), which had completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 23, 1998. In order to secure the above loan obligation, the plaintiff transferred the existing real estate of this case to the defendant with the maximum debt amount of KRW 13 million and D with the right to collateral security (hereinafter "the right to collateral security of this case") completed on December 30, 1997, and completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security (hereinafter "the right to collateral security of this case") on May 9, 1998.

Since the plaintiff paid all of the above borrowed money or the extinctive prescription of the above borrowed money was completed on or around the end of May 1998, the plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage in the nearest area of this case against the defendant.

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to support the allegation of extinctive prescription as to the claim for the repayment of the loan, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. 2) Next, as to the claim for extinctive prescription, the right to collateral security refers to a mortgage which is established by reserving only the maximum amount of the claim to be secured and reserving the determination of the obligation in the future. In this case, the extinction or transfer of the obligation until the secured obligation is determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7176, May 24, 2002) does not affect the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7176, May 24, 2002). The Plaintiff created the instant right to collateral security by borrowing KRW 10 million from the Defendant around May 1998 to secure it, and there is no evidence to support the confirmation

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.