1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 1999, the Plaintiff issued a credit guarantee certificate to Nonparty D borrowed KRW 7 million from Nonparty FF association (hereinafter “Nonindicted F”).

B. When a guarantee accident occurred because Nonparty D did not pay a loan to Nonparty F, the Plaintiff subrogated Nonparty F with the principal amounting to KRW 7 million and interest amounting to KRW 697,985 on June 29, 2007 as the guarantor’s position. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has the right of subrogation against Nonparty D.

C. On the other hand, on January 12, 2002, Nonparty D completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a collateral security”) against the Defendant on January 11, 2002 with respect to the land of 1,720 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Defendant, on January 11, 2002.

Nonparty D is insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, insofar as the secured obligation of the registration of the establishment of a collateral in the instant case is not revealed to be particularly due, the extinctive prescription shall commence from the time the contract to establish a collateral was concluded. Thus, the extinctive prescription shall expire on January 11, 201 after the lapse of ten years from January 11, 2002, which was the date when the establishment of a collateral was caused by the establishment of a mortgage in the instant case. As a creditor against Nonparty D, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the subrogation right is necessary to be preserved, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment of a collateral in the instant case to Nonparty D.

B. The Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations was suspended since the Defendant lent money to Nonparty D and obtained the registration of the establishment of the instant root and received subsidies for the rent of the instant land under the pretext of interest on the loan.

Domins, B No. 1.