1. The defendant on September 29, 2003 pertaining to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the registration of mortgage creation on Sep. 29, 2003 (hereinafter "registration of mortgage creation of this case") was completed on the automobiles listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the automobile of this case"). The plaintiff borrowed KRW 2,000,000 from the defendant on Sep. 29, 2003 and borrowed KRW 2,000,000 from the defendant on Sep. 29, 2003, the secured claim of this case was extinguished by repayment around 2004.

It is alleged that the extinctive prescription has been completed or that the registration of the establishment of mortgage of this case is sought for cancellation.

In light of the registration date of the establishment of the mortgage of this case or the record of the value of the claim, etc. as shown in the above facts, although there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's repayment (as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge the due date of the above secured claim, it shall be viewed that the defendant did not know of the content of the loan office at the time, and thus, it shall be deemed that the defendant did not have the obligation to cancel the registration of the mortgage of this case, which was completed with respect to the automobile of this case, from September 29, 2003 to September 29, 2003, as long as the secured claim of this case, which is the loan claim of this case, against the plaintiff, has expired at the latest (as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge the due date of the secured claim, it shall be deemed that the secured claim of this case can be exercised from the time of the occurrence of the right which was not determined due date, the extinctive prescription will run from September 29, 2003).

As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.