1. The defendant on December 24, 1996, as to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff in Busan District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment registration of the neighboring real estate”) was completed on December 23, 1996 by the Busan District Court, which was based on the debtor, the mortgagee, the defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 120,000,000, and the contract for establishing a contract on December 23, 1996.

B. Around December 1996, the instant right to collateral security was established in order to secure the deceased’s indemnity liability (hereinafter “instant secured obligation”) upon the Defendant’s subrogation for the Defendant with respect to the goods payment obligation owed by the deceased B (the deceased’s death on September 18, 2010, and hereinafter “the deceased”) to the gold death Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not exercise the right to collateral security so far so far, the secured debt of this case should be deemed to have been fully repaid, and even if not, the secured debt of this case has become a commercial debt and the five-year extinctive prescription has expired, the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security of this case should be cancelled.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the secured obligation in this case was not yet due, and even if not, the ten-year extinctive prescription should be applied as civil liability. Around September 2016, the Plaintiff renounced the statute of limitations benefits, as the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that C and the secured obligation representing the Plaintiff were to be converted to KRW 100 million.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured obligation was repaid is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the entries in the evidence No. 8-1 to No. 4 alone are fully repaid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the secured obligation was fully repaid.