1. The defendant shall receive on June 4, 199 from the Cheongju District Court with respect to the 2,764 square meters prior to C in Chungcheongnam-si.

Facts of recognition

Around May 21, 1999 between the Defendant and the Defendant, a credit service provider, established for the purpose of taking over and managing sales bonds (hereinafter collectively referred to as “F”), a loan certificate was made with the content of borrowing KRW 20 million from the Defendant without fixing the due date for reimbursement. F, on June 4, 1999, set up a mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed on January 18, 2013; the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate on January 18, 200; F was dissolved on December 18, 2006; and there is no dispute between the parties’ respective evidence No. 12, evidence No. 21, and evidence No. 21.

The plaintiff asserts whether there is no secured debt or not, first of all, F did not borrow money from the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the establishment registration of a mortgage should be cancelled because F did not have the secured debt or not.

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to see that F borrowed money was drawn up between the Defendant and F and the Defendant. As such, if the objective meaning of the language and text is clear when the parties to a contract written out in writing, which is a disposal document, the existence and content of the intent should be acknowledged, unless there are special circumstances. If F did not receive the actual loan, but it is difficult to understand that the establishment of the instant right to collateral security was difficult, it is reasonable to see that F borrowed money from the Defendant as stated in the loan certificate, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

In addition, whether the statute of limitations has expired or not, the Plaintiff’s debt secured by the instant right to collateral security has expired.