The defendant shall register with the Chuncheon District Court on the land size of 1,534 square meters prior to Chuncheon-si, and the defendant shall receive on January 30, 1991 as 2704.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of the Chuncheon District Court and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage”) around KRW 9,900,000 with respect to the land owned by D (hereinafter “instant land”) was completed on January 30, 1991 by the debtor D, the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount, the maximum debt amount, and KRW 9,90,000, as well as the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case”).

B. D on January 31, 1998, sold the instant land to the Plaintiff’s mother E and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 24, 1998.

C. E died on August 29, 199, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 21, 2019 due to inheritance by agreement and division concerning the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s secured debt on the instant land was extinguished by prescription, and sought cancellation of the registration of creation of the instant nearby mortgage.

On the other hand, the extinctive prescription of the above right to collateral security runs from January 30, 1991, which appears that the defendant had been able to exercise his claim, and at the latest, E runs from February 24, 1998, when completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case.

However, since February 24, 1998, the fact that the Defendant did not exercise the above secured debt for more than ten years, which is the period of extinctive prescription of the claim, does not conflict between the parties. Thus, the above Defendant’s claim was extinguished by extinctive prescription on February 25, 2008 at the latest.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.