1. The defendant shall receive on August 19, 2002 from the Cheongju District Court Branch on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 16, 2002, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200,000,000 from the Defendant as “interest rate of 25% per annum and maturity of 16 February 2003.”

The father C, the plaintiff's father, guaranteed the plaintiff's above loan debt on the same day.

B. The plaintiff is the defendant on August 19, 2002.

In order to secure the obligations stated in the separate list, the Cheongju District Court completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) which is the maximum amount of the claims amount of KRW 200,000,000, the Defendant of the right to collateral security, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, as stated in the separate list No. 20728.

C. On May 13, 2003, the Defendant received a voluntary decision on the commencement of auction on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (Cheongju District Court Branch D) and the registration of the voluntary decision on commencement of auction was completed on the same day.

On April 24, 2004, the defendant withdrawn the above voluntary auction application, and the registration of the decision on voluntary auction was cancelled on April 26, 2004.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff, which is the secured claim for the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case, was terminated on May 13, 2003, which was after the due date ( February 16, 2003), and the prescription was interrupted due to the termination of the registration of the voluntary auction decision on April 26, 2004, and the registration of the said voluntary auction decision was cancelled.

On October 25, 2018, 10 years from the date when the registration of the decision to commence voluntary auction was cancelled, the defendant's response to the lawsuit in this case and asserted the existence of the above loan claim.

Therefore, the above loan claims had already been extinguished by prescription before the defendant's complaint was filed.

Ultimately, barring any special circumstance, the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case has expired by prescription. Thus, the defendant is the plaintiff of this case.