(1) The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the foregoing right on the ground that the Defendant’s secured obligation with respect to each of the instant real estate did not exist, with respect to each of the instant real estate, within the scope of the amount exceeding the amount calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from January 29, 2016 to the date of full payment, with respect to the said compulsory execution of KRW 67,515,651, and KRW 60,000,000.

(2) However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

Where there is no obligation to be secured by the right to collateral security, the debtor shall file an objection against the decision on commencement of auction pursuant to Articles 265, 268 and 86(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the ground therefor, and shall file a lawsuit of demurrer against the obligation, such as a provisional disposition corresponding to Article 16(2) of the same Act, or a lawsuit of demurrer against the obligation, such as a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation, pursuant to Article 86(2) of the same Act, and may suspend the procedure of voluntary auction based on the right to collateral security upon provisional disposition pursuant to Article 46(2) of the same Act. However, a lawsuit of seeking the refusal of voluntary auction based on the right to collateral security cannot be filed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43684 delivered on September 24, 2002).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding auction for the exercise of security right, which received part of the Plaintiffs’ claims seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the right to collateral security regarding each of the instant real estate, and dismissed the remainder of claims.

2. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) as to the remainder of the grounds of appeal except for non-permission of compulsory execution.

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that there was no amount exceeding 30% per annum from January 29, 2016 to the date of full payment as to the amount of promissory note gold obligations based on the instant notarial deed, the amount of collateral security obligations based on the instant notarial deed, the amount of KRW 67,515,651, and the amount of KRW 60,000,000 among them.

Examining the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the non-performance of compulsory execution is reversed. Since this part of the case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance corresponding to this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed, and the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs shall be dismissed, and 3/5 of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by

Justices Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)