배당이의
1. A distribution schedule prepared on March 10, 2014 by the preceding district court C (D, E overlapping real estate) with respect to a compulsory auction case.
1. Facts of premise;
A. In the Jeonju District Court C (D, E overlapping real estate auction case (hereinafter “instant auction”), the said court prepared a distribution schedule containing the distribution of KRW 111,570,142 to the Defendant on March 10, 2014, and KRW 20,986,587 to the Plaintiff on March 10, 2014.
B. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff stated an objection against the Defendant’s dividend on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 17, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Article 341 of the Civil Act provides that Article 370 of the same Act applies mutatis mutandis to a mortgage in accordance with the judgment on the cause of a claim. Article 341 of the same Act provides that a mortgage holder who has created a mortgage to secure another person's obligation shall obtain the right to indemnity against the debtor when he/she has repaid his/her obligation or has lost his/her ownership as a result of the execution of the mortgage, and the requirements for the establishment of the right to indemnity against the person who has pledged his/her obligation are different from the cases of the guarantor, and the real guarantee is an act of establishing a security right on behalf of the debtor for the debtor, and is not entrusted with the performance of the work of performing the obligation on behalf of the debtor. Therefore, the surety is not liable for physical liability as a security, unless there are special circumstances, and the scope of the right to indemnity against the debtor shall be determined at the time when the surety has repaid his/her obligation or has lost his/her ownership as a security by the execution of the security right. In principle, it is reasonable to interpret
(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da19802, 19819 Decided July 23, 2009). In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 4, 7, and 1 and 2, the Defendant was omitted on August 3, 2010.