1. The defendant is the District Court No. 29364, Mar. 20, 2004 regarding the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) was originally owned C, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 16, 2004 on the said land due to inheritance. In other words, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 6, 2016 under the name of the Plaintiff as the receipt of the Busan District Court No. 185173 on October 6, 2016.

B. Meanwhile, as to the above land, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed on March 20, 2000 won with the maximum debt amount of 20 million won, the debtor C and the mortgagee as the defendant on March 20, 2004 by the Ulsan District Court No. 29364, which was received on March 20, 2004.

(hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage of this case"). [Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport before oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has expired by prescription, and sought the cancellation of the instant right to collateral security.

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s claim against C, which is the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, has expired due to the completion of the extinctive prescription after the lapse of not less than 10 years from the date of establishment of the right to collateral security prior to the instant lawsuit, and it is reasonable to view that the instant right to collateral security also expired

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to execute the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case, and the plaintiff can seek cancellation of the above right as a claim for removal of interference based on ownership

B. As to this, the Defendant created a right to collateral security on the instant land by lending KRW 20 million to C, and upon the death of C, the inheritance registration of the said land was completed in the name of D. However, D prepared a loan certificate (Evidence 3) while deciding to accept the said secured obligation, and obtained a favorable judgment prior to the completion of the statute of limitations for the secured obligation, and thus the statute of limitations has been interrupted.