1. The defendant on April 3, 2004, as to the real estate stated in the attached list in the plaintiff's attached list, the Dong Government District Court's registry office of the district court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) due to the sale on March 22, 2003.

B. Around 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed 7 million won as the sale price of the building of this case, which was unpaid to the Defendant (hereinafter “the loan of this case”). However, the Plaintiff agreed to complete the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the building of this case under the name of the Defendant as the secured obligation.

C. According to the above agreement on April 3, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) set forth in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition against the Plaintiff, the obligor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant, regarding the instant building.

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

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the maturity period for the instant loan obligation, which is the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security, has not been determined, the extinctive prescription has run since 2003, which was the time of its establishment, and it is apparent that ten years have passed since the date of its establishment as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.

Therefore, since the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the instant right to collateral security also ceased to exist according to the nature of the secured right

I would like to say.

Ultimately, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant claimed the Plaintiff to pay the loan of this case on October 9, 2007, and thus, the extinctive prescription was suspended. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant claimed the Plaintiff to pay the loan of this case on or around October 9, 2007, and the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

B. The defendant, around October 9, 2007, shall be the plaintiff of this case.