Since the statute of limitations for the secured obligation of the right to collateral security has expired, the seizure right holder should express his/her consent to the cancellation of the right to collateral security.

Since the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation of the defaulted taxpayer has expired and there is no ground to interrupt the extinctive prescription, the Republic of Korea who seized the secured obligation must declare his/her consent.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

Gwangju District Court 2016Kadan32945 Registration of Establishment of Mortgage, etc.

west ○

Republic of Korea and one other

September 22, 2017

October 13, 2017

1. Defendant Lee ○, Inc., the Plaintiff:

A. On September 18, 2001, Gwangju District Court Naju registry office with respect to the real estate stated in attached list No. 4

completed by heading 17069;

B. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, the Gwangju District Court's Naju Registry completed on August 6, 2002 No. 16920

The registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage shall be implemented.

2. Defendant Republic of Korea expressed its intent to accept the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage as stated in the above 1.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the results of the party inquiry into the facts of Gap evidence No. 1-1-7 and Eul evidence No. 1-B-1, and the fact inquiry into the Gwangju District Court, as to the real estate stated in paragraph (4) of the attached Table No. 4, which is owned by the plaintiff, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the mortgagee Lee ○○○, as to each real estate listed in paragraph (4) of the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of each of the above neighboring mortgages of this case was combined with all of the registered mortgages of this case) was completed by the maximum debt amount 00 won, the mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed.

B. Considering the circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the secured obligation of each of the instant mortgages has expired by prescription prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, Defendant ○○ is obliged to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the instant mortgages to the Plaintiff.

(c) Where a claim bearing the right to collateral security is seized, the method of additional registration in the establishment registration of the right to collateral security;

The purpose of registering the seizure of the secured claim is to publicly announce the seizure of the secured claim because the seizure of the secured claim of the secured claim becomes effective even in the case where the secured claim of the secured claim of the secured claim is attached, which is a subordinate right by the incidental nature of the secured claim. If the secured claim of the secured claim does not exist, the seizure order shall be null and void. If the secured claim of the secured claim of the secured claim is cancelled, the seizure right holder shall be a third party with an interest in the registration and shall express his/her consent to the cancellation of the secured claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7041, May 28, 2004)

Therefore, as seen earlier, each seizure order against each of the instant collateral claims shall also be null and void inasmuch as the obligation against each of the instant collateral claims becomes extinct due to the completion of prescription. Therefore, the Defendant Republic of Korea is a third party with an interest in registration as a seizure right holder of each of the instant collateral claims. Therefore, the Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent to the cancellation of each of the instant collateral claims.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.