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

A. Isa, on September 20, 1999, completed the registration of creation of a collateral (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of collateral security of this case") with respect to the real property of this case to Gaa, a collateral security holder, a maximum debt amount, 260,000,000 as the owner of Gyeongbukaaaaaa forest land (hereinafter referred to as the "real property of this case").

B. On October 18, 2013, the head of a tax office completed the attachment registration based on the disposition on default on the instant real estate on the grounds of the delinquency in tax payment set forth in Aa. The Korea Asset Management Corporation, on behalf of the head of a tax office, conducted a public auction procedure on the instant real estate on July 16, 2014, and prepared a distribution statement (hereinafter referred to as the “the first distribution statement”) that allocates 58,563,820 won to the amount to be distributed on July 16, 2014, 2,066,320 won for the first priority disposition on disposition on default, 40,760 won for the second priority disposition on default, 3rd priority collective security holders’ gamblings 5,710,00 won for the third priority collective security holders’s sss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

C. On July 1, 2014, Parks transferred the instant claim on the instant shares to the Plaintiff, and notified the Korea Asset Management Corporation thereof.

D. The Korea Asset Management Corporation, upon receipt of an objection to the allocation of the instant shares from Aa on the date of allocation, paid the remainder of the instant shares except the instant shares to each distribution authority, and remitted the instant shares to the head of a Aa tax office on July 25, 2014, and the head of a Aa tax office deposited the instant shares as the Government’s custody, and the Aa tax office withdrawn the distribution objection on July 28, 2014.

E. On July 28, 2014, the Korea Asset Management Corporation requested the director of a tax office to deposit 5,721,620 won (i.e., 55,710,000 won + accrued interest 11,620 won) from the Plaintiff’s account and notify the result of the payment process, but the director of a tax office rejected payment on the grounds that there is doubt about the instant amount distribution.

F. On May 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the head of a Aa Tax Office for the payment of the instant amount, but the head of a Aa Tax Office rejected the application on the grounds that “the circumstance where Aa had already repaid all the secured obligations of the instant collateral registration prior to the date of the instant allocation is confirmed prior to the date of the instant allocation.”

G. Around February 2017, the director of a tax office prepared a statement of distribution (hereinafter referred to as a "Revised statement of distribution") that allocates the amount subject to the above distribution to KRW 2,066,320,20, and in the second order aa military administration 40,760, and in the third order aa tax secretary 746,740, and in the fourth order a tax secretary 55,721,620, in the fourth order.

H. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Korea Asset Management Corporation seeking the payment of the instant distribution amount (Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap5480), on May 19, 2016, the Korea Asset Management Corporation retired its judgment on the ground that the initial distribution statement was not the subject of attribution of the distribution amount. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the instant distribution amount on the premise that the initial distribution statement was finalized (Seoul District Court 2016Guhap2249), but the Defendant was given favorable judgment (Seoul High Court 2017Nu585), but the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that the part concerning the instant distribution amount among the initial distribution statement was not finalized, and the said appellate judgment became final and conclusive on June 15, 2018 (Supreme Court 2018Du3784).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The director of the tax office decided at will that the secured obligation was repaid for the registration of the instant collateral security, and distributed the instant amount to the Plaintiff who acquired the instant amount of the instant amount from stuffs without paying the instant amount of the distribution to the Defendant. However, since Ga did not repay KRW 70 million of the secured obligation under the registration of the instant collateral security, the instant amount of the distribution should be paid to the mortgagee, even though the Defendant received the instant amount of the distribution from the mortgagee and obtained profits equivalent to KRW 55,721,620, and suffered damages equivalent to the amount of the said amount from the Plaintiff, the transferee of the instant amount of the claim. The Defendant must return the said amount to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. A. Since a mortgage is a security right established for the purpose of securing a certain limit from a settlement term of accounts for a large number of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction, as a security right, which is established for the purpose of securing a certain limit, the act of establishing a mortgage must be separate from the act of establishing a mortgage, and the burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of a mortgage exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408, Apr. 28, 201).

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 14 and 17, the plaintiff testified that "a appears as witness in the lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2014Da5302198, and later transferred at the appellate court of the above case to 2016Guhap5480, Seoul Administrative Court) claiming the payment of the amount of this case against the Korea Asset Management Corporation," and that "a was aware that there existed about 70 million won out of the secured debt, and that the distribution objection was withdrawn" was issued on September 21, 199, with a promissory note with a face value of KRW 260,000,000 among the secured debt.

However, with respect to the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, the Plaintiff asserted that Eaa’s stuffs or the obligation against the Plaintiff remains in excess of KRW 70 million, and did not specifically assert and prove that Parkss or the Plaintiff acquired claims against Ea against Ea. In light of the aforementioned evidence, Eul’s entries and the overall purport of oral arguments, it is difficult to readily conclude that Ea had no other evidence and evidence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant during the examination procedure of Ea as to Ea in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2014Da5302198, Sept. 9, 2013, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff examined Ea on the premise that the initial creditor of the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security of this case was the Plaintiff) transferred KRW 550,00,000 to an account under the name of Ea as to Ea in the examination procedure of the witness examination, as to how the accurate balance and the balance of the obligation against the Plaintiff was calculated based on Ea in the aforementioned examination procedure.

4. Conclusion

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