1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On December 28, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with the Gwangju District Court No. 284, Jan. 3, 2003, the maximum debt amount of KRW 55,00,000, the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In order to avoid compulsory execution on the instant real estate under the circumstance that the Plaintiff asserted by the Plaintiff bears a large amount of debt, such as credit card payment obligations, the instant collateral security is a registration invalidation of the cause of the establishment, since it was only completed the establishment registration of the instant collateral by a false conspiracy with the Defendant and did not have any legal act establishing the secured obligation.

Even if not, this case’s right to collateral security was established in order to secure the above loan obligation, which is a specific bond, by borrowing KRW 36,000,000 from the Defendant on December 10, 2002, and thus, it is deemed that the secured obligation has been established from the time of its creation.

However, as the ten-year prescription has expired due to the lapse of the ten-year prescription, the above secured debt has expired, and as a result, the instant secured mortgage also expired, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the instant secured mortgage to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) Determination of the assertion of false representation of conspiracy 1) : (a) the statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the testimony of witness D of the party concerned alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the mortgage of this case was established by the false representation of conspiracy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (b) there is no other evidence to support this; and (c) the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not accepted. 2) The determination of the claim of expiration of the extinctive prescription as to the right to collateral refers to the right to collateral