1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff, the defendant shall be the Busan District Court's Dong Branch of Busan District Court.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff borrowed 10,000,000 won from the defendant around September 197 as interest rate of 20% per annum, as well as six months from the date of borrowing the period of repayment, and on September 22, 1997, entered into a collateral security contract with the defendant as the secured obligation with regard to real estate stated in the separate sheet, with the maximum amount of debt of 15,00,000 won as the secured obligation, and on September 23, 1997, concluded a collateral security contract with the defendant on September 23, 1997.

Since it is apparent that ten years have elapsed since the repayment period of the above loan loan, which is the secured debt of the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case, was expired, the above loan loan debt was extinguished by prescription, barring any special circumstance. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure of cancellation of the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case to the plaintiff.

2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant asserted that since the plaintiff paid KRW 2,500,000 to the defendant as the repayment of the above borrowed debt around 2005, the extinctive prescription of the above borrowed debt was suspended. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.