1. The Defendant is owned by the Plaintiff among the total area of 83,702 square meters in Yang-gu, Gangwon-do, and 4,876 square meters in D forest and 109 square meters in E forest and land, and owned by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 83,702 square meters of land in Yang-gu, Gangwon-do, and 4,876 square meters of land in D, and 109 square meters of land in E, respectively (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Of the instant land, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) that was completed on January 16, 1998 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million on the ground of the contract to establish a contract on January 15, 1998 with respect to one’s own share as to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① (a) the Defendant filed a complaint against F, the husband of the Plaintiff, and was tried by the Defendant on the charge of fraud; (b) the F, out of the land of this case, was subject to the registration of the establishment of the ownership of the Plaintiff in order to secure the amount to be repaid to the Defendant; (c) the F, upon which the judgment of innocence was rendered, became final, did not have any investment deposit refund claim or damage claim arising from tort against F, and (d) the secured claim expired by prescription, including ② the lapse of 20 years after the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration procedure of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the

B. In light of whether the extinctive prescription of the secured claim of this case has expired or not, the due date for the secured claim of this case has not been separately determined, and as a matter of principle, the extinctive prescription of the secured claim has run from the time of establishment of the claim without setting the due date. The extinctive prescription of the secured claim of this case was run from January 15, 1998, which was the date of the contract to establish the right to collateral, and ten years have passed from the said date.

I would like to say.

Therefore, without examining the existence of the secured claim, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral was extinguished.

As such, the defendant is the plaintiff of this case.