배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 25, 2010, the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract with respect to the Seo-gu Busan metropolitan apartment 103 Dong 301 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is owned by B and B, with the purport of setting up the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant apartment”) against the maximum debt amount of KRW 235,00,000, and the debtor B and the mortgagee as the defendant, and completed the establishment registration of the right to collateral security on the same day.
B. On January 25, 2010, the Defendant entered into each of the loan agreements with B and ① KRW 196,00,000, general loans of loan subjects, general loans of loan type, loan period, KRW 28,00,000, loan amount, KRW 28,000, KRW 100, KRW 25,000, KRW 25,000, KRW 25,000, KRW 25,000, KRW 25,000, KRW 25,000, and KRW 25,012 (hereinafter “instant loan”). On the same day, the Defendant carried out the loan under the said agreement.
C. Upon the Defendant’s application, Busan District Court made a decision to voluntarily commence the auction on the instant apartment, and distributed KRW 276,929,364, which was the amount to be actually distributed, after deducting the execution cost from the date of distribution implemented on December 17, 2013, the Defendant, who was the first priority, prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 235,200,000, KRW 21,045,973 to the Plaintiff, the second priority priority, and KRW 20,683,391 to the Daegu Bank, the second priority priority, the Plaintiff, the second priority priority, and KRW 20,683,391 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The Plaintiff’s second loan of this case is not included in the secured debt of the right to collateral security, and thus, the part of the principal and interest of the second loan of this case against the Defendant is unlawful.
Therefore, 29,288,303 out of the amount of dividends against the defendant should be deleted from the amount of dividends against the defendant, and it should be distributed to the plaintiff additionally.
3. As to whether the loan No. 2 of this case is included in the secured debt of the instant mortgage, the health unit No. 1, B.