2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

PO district court's OO branch's 2014 another 8OO or 9OOO (dus)'s 150,476,780 won of the dividend amount against the defendant in the dividend table prepared by the above court on February 3, 2015, the dividend amount of 232,195,193 won against the plaintiff shall be corrected to 346,890,320 won, respectively.

(a) Establishment of a collateral security right and application for auction of each of the instant real estate by ParkB;

1) On April 30, 2012 with respect to the O-O land and its ground (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”), ParkB completed the registration of creation of a collateral on May 2, 2012, 200, using the debtor RoCC and the maximum debt amount as KRW 200 million on the ground of termination on August 7, 2013, and then cancelled the registration on August 8, 2013 (the next day, CC set up the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.29 billion in the future of DD Mutual Savings Bank) (hereinafter “instant mortgage”). On August 14, 2013, ParkB completed the registration of creation of a collateral on the ground of the debtor Round and the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million (hereinafter “instant mortgage”).

2) On the other hand, on July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court seeking revocation of fraudulent act and compensation for value (2013 GohapOOO (the provisional attachment registration of each of the instant real estate was completed on August 8, 2013), and on April 1, 2014, “SCC paid to the Plaintiff damages for delay from the date following the date on which the judgment became final and conclusive,” which became final and conclusive on the 18th of the same month.

3) On April 25, 2014, ParkB filed an application for a voluntary auction of each of the instant real estate with the instant court on the basis of the instant right to collateral security, and on the 28th of the same month, the decision to commence the auction of each of the instant real estate was rendered and the auction procedure was conducted under the court 2014Mata8OO as to each of the instant real estate (the decision to commence the voluntary auction was also rendered on May 14, 2014 by the court 2014 another 9OO pursuant to the application for voluntary auction by DD Mutual Savings Banks, Co., Ltd., a collateral security (right

4) On November 7, 2014, ParkB, who was in the process of the above auction procedure, completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security on the ground of the transfer of contract on each of the instant real estate to the Defendant who was his principal.

B. Preparation of the distribution schedule of this case and the plaintiff's objection

1) On February 3, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule containing each distribution of KRW 232,195,193 and KRW 150,476,780 to the Defendant, who is the creditor and the mortgagee and the mortgagee, in the sixth order of the amount to be actually distributed, among KRW 1,579,880,826.

2) The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and made a statement of objection to the distribution against the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on February 5, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, 6, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The right to collateral security of this case is null and void because there is no legal act that generates the secured claim between ParkB and UCC, or has been established falsely for the purpose of evading the claim in relation to the plaintiff and other creditors.

Therefore, since the dividend amount against the defendant among the dividend table of this case prepared on the basis of the right to collateral security of this case is unfair, it should be corrected as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant’s assertion

ParkB had a claim amounting to KRW 200 million against PCC. Since around 2001, ParkB had a claim amounting to KRW 200 million. The above claim was established by PCC as a secured claim on each of the instant real estate, and the Defendant lent the above claim amounting to KRW 60 million to GBB and was transferred as a security.

C. Determination

1) The burden of proof in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure. If the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and if the plaintiff asserts that the claim has been invalidated as a false declaration of agreement or extinguished by repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the cause of disability or extinction (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). Meanwhile, the right to collateral is established with only setting the maximum amount of the debt to be secured, and it is established with the aim of securing several unspecified claims arising from the continuous transaction with the aim of securing a certain limit in future settlement period. Thus, separate from the act of creation of the right to collateral security, a legal act must establish the secured claim of the right to collateral security separately from the act of creation of the right to collateral security, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the secured claim at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security exists.

2) As seen earlier, the instant right to collateral security was established as the cause of a contract establishing the right to collateral security on August 7, 2013, and thus, whether there was a legal act establishing the instant right to collateral security between ParkB and MaCC or not.

(5) According to Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and No. 2, Eul No. 1 and No. 2, No. 2, and No. 11 and No. 11, the court below's decision that the above No. 2, No. 1 and No. 2 were 000,000,000 won for the purpose of this case's 2,000,000 won for the settlement of mortgage No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 2, the court below's decision that the above No. 2, No. 2,000,000 won for the purpose of this case's 2,000,000 won for the settlement of mortgage No. 1 and No. 2,000,000 won for the purpose of this case's 2,000,000 won for the settlement of mortgage No. 2,00,000 won for the purpose of this case's 2,010.

Therefore, without any need to examine the Plaintiff’s claim premised on the invalidity of the instant right to collateral security.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.