1. The defendant, on July 1, 199, filed with the plaintiff with respect to the area of 516 square meters in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch Office.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 27, 1999, the provisional attachment registration in the amount of KRW 388,604,977 (hereinafter “registration of provisional attachment”) was completed on April 27, 199 with respect to the land of this case, Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, which was owned by D. (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 28, 1999, the registration of provisional attachment was completed on the ground of the mortgage contract with the mortgagee F/D, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000 (hereinafter “registration of the instant collateral security”).

B. After December 14, 199, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on a sales contract dated December 9, 199 with respect to the instant land. Meanwhile, on July 29, 2000, the Defendant completed the additional registration of transfer of right to collateral security based on the assignment of claims as of July 28, 200 with respect to the instant registration of collateral security on July 29, 200.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The parties' assertion

A. The secured debt of the Plaintiff’s instant collateral security registration does not exist, and even if the secured debt exists, even if there exists the secured debt, the registration of the instant collateral security should be cancelled due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription period.

B. Defendant F lent KRW 50,00,000 to D as a collateral, completed the registration of the instant collateral security, and thereafter, D, around 2008, approved the secured debt by paying a part of the debt to the Defendant, the transferee of the instant collateral security right, thereby suspending the extinctive prescription period, and thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to cancel the instant collateral security registration.

3. Determination

A. Legal doctrine is a mortgage established by setting the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act). Since multiple and unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction relationship are established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in the future settlement period, there is a legal act establishing the secured claim of the right to collateral separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security.