All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In light of the contents and purport of Article 368 of the Civil Act, in cases where a joint mortgagee has received part of the secured debt out of the proceeds from the sale of part of the immovable property as the object of the joint collateral through the realization of auction, etc. conducted by a third party, the joint mortgagee may not exercise again his right to preferential reimbursement as a joint mortgagee in the realization procedure of the remaining immovable property as the object of the joint collateral, and the scope of the right to preferential reimbursement, which may be exercised as a joint mortgagee with respect to the remaining immovable property as the object of the joint collateral, is limited to the remaining maximum debt amount less the amount preferentially reimbursed as above, regardless of whether the
The same shall also apply where a secured claim exceeding the maximum debt amount is not the principal but the interest delay damage.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da16992 Decided December 21, 2017). The lower court acknowledged that Defendant A, a joint mortgagee, and the remaining Defendants’ decedent I, etc. filed an application for auction of real estate in sequential order with respect to the real estate that became the object of joint collateral, and received some of the maximum debt amount, and subsequently, determined that the instant distribution schedule established on the premise that the Defendants, a joint mortgagee, have the right to preferential reimbursement within the scope of the initial maximum debt amount of the joint collateral should be revised, on the ground that the Defendants, a joint mortgagee, were limited to the amount obtained by deducting the amount already apportioned from the maximum debt amount of the joint collateral mortgage.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable as it is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.