배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In the Daegu District Court’s Seo-Support B real estate B case for compulsory auction as well as the overall purport of the evidence evidence No. 3 as to the real estate owned by C (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the Defendant, a mortgagee, has been apportioned KRW 5,00,00,000, the maximum debt amount, and KRW 53,274,992, the remaining amount, to the Plaintiff, the applicant obligee, respectively, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends on the date of distribution implemented on April 21, 2014, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on April 28, 201.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was completed the registration of creation of a mortgage near the Daegu District Court Branch of District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 62126, Aug. 5, 1998, the maximum debt amount of KRW 55 million (hereinafter “the registration of creation of a mortgage near the instant real estate”). Since the secured debt out of the said right has expired due to repayment or completion of prescription, the Defendant, who is the mortgagee, should not be apportioned the amount of KRW 50 million equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the mortgage in the auction procedure regarding the instant real estate, and the said amount shall be distributed to the Plaintiff, the creditor of C.
B. We examine the judgment of the court below, the argument that the secured debt of this case was extinguished due to C's repayment is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove this.
Next, according to the facts that the plaintiff's assertion of extinctive prescription can be known by the descriptions of health team, Gap evidence No. 5, and No. 12-1, that is, C paid interest on the loan to the defendant several times from 2005 to 2006 to 2009, and from 2010 to 2010, C paid interest on the loan to the defendant several times, and C paid the interest on the loan to the defendant at the beginning and around the beginning of 2012 and around 2012, it is determined that the defendant's claim against C has been suspended by the extinctive prescription period, or that the prescription interest has been renounced.
Therefore, the defendant's obligation to C is the debt of the defendant.