1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

D With respect to the instant real estate owned by D, on May 15, 2009, the establishment registration of the instant neighboring mortgage amount of KRW 42,000,000 was completed in the E’s name.

B. After that, on November 5, 2009, the registration of transfer of the instant right to collateral security was completed on the ground of transfer of contract in the future of the defendant, and the defendant is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a creditor based on a final and conclusive judgment on D (Seoul Northern District Court 2010Daso117017).

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. As long as the secured claim (hereinafter “the secured claim of this case”) was not exercised for more than ten years after the establishment of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “the secured claim of this case”) and the extinctive prescription of the said claim has expired after the completion of the extinctive prescription, the establishment of the instant right to collateral security should be cancelled in accordance with the doctrine of the appendant nature.

Furthermore, the following Defendant’s assertion alone cannot be deemed as having a ground to interrupt extinctive prescription.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant received the instant secured claim amounting to KRW 31,670,00,00 from E and demanded D to repay the loan amounting to KRW 31,670,000, several times. Upon the Defendant’s request, there was an entry of a decision of re-determination of a defaulters’ list against D upon D’s request. Moreover, since the Defendant approved the obligation, such as sending a mobile phone text message with the purport that D would repay the said obligation to the Plaintiff several times, the extinctive prescription of the instant secured claim had not yet been completed

C. The purport that the recognition of an obligation as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription recognizes the existence of a right against a person who is a party to the extinctive prescription benefit and would lose the right due to the completion of prescription.