beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s ground for the completion of extinctive prescription on October 31, 2014 with respect to the area of 73 square meters in Daegu Northern-gu, the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s ASEAN borrowed KRW 4 million from the Defendant on May 20, 2004; and (b) the Daegu District Court’s registration of the Daegu Northern District Court on May 28, 2004, as the receipt of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the Daegu Northern District Court on May 28, 2004; (c) the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the part of the Plaintiff, the obligor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant
2. Whether the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation has expired;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription was completed on October 31, 2014, since the Defendant did not exercise the secured obligation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage for the ten-year period.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription has not been completed due to the fact that the period of reimbursement has been set five years later.
B. The statute of limitations proceeds from the time when a creditor can exercise his/her right. However, there is no evidence to support the defendant's assertion that the period of time has expired five years, and the statute of limitations runs from the date when the claim is established.
Therefore, since the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage has expired on October 31, 2014, the extinctive prescription has expired, the Defendant is obliged to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage indicated in the order to the Plaintiff.
(D) In light of the fact that the defendant did not reply to the plaintiff's argument that D borrowed money from the defendant as business funds, the secured debt appears to be a commercial debt. If so, even if the due date was set five years after the due date, the defendant's argument is without merit. 3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.