1. The defendant shall accept the registration of the Seoul Eastern District Court and October 28, 2003 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserted that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is completed with the registration of the Seoul Eastern District Court and the maximum debt amount of KRW 175 million on October 28, 2003, the mother of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, which is one of his family members, with the intent to secure the livelihood of his family even if the plaintiff failed to perform his business. The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is invalid where there is no secured debt.

Even if it is not so, since the secured obligation of the establishment registration near the above mortgage has ceased to exist by the completion of extinctive prescription, the establishment registration of the above mortgage is invalid without any cause.

2. There is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed on the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff.

그러나, 을 제1호증의 기재 � 증인 C의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고의 소개로 피고가 2000.경 원고의 손아래 동서인 D 운영의 회사에 금전을 투자하였다가 이를 회수하지 못하는 손해를 입었고, 이에 원고는 2003. 9. 경 위 7천만원 및 그에 대한 2000.경부터 2003.경까지의 이자 명목의 4,200만원 등 합계 1억 1,200만원, 원고가 위 부동산을 매입할 당시 피고가 원고에게 대여한 3,000만원 합계 1억 4,200만원에 대한 담보로 피고에게 위 부동산을 재공하기로 하고, 피고에게 위 근저당권설정등기를 마쳐준 사실이 인정되는바, 위 근저당권 설정등기의 피담보채무가 존재하지 아니한다는 원고 주장은 이유 없다.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the period for repayment of the Plaintiff’s obligation at the time of completing the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage, the Defendant could immediately exercise the said claim, and the instant lawsuit was filed on March 31, 2014 after the lapse of 10 years thereafter.