A. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, in the case of a compulsory auction for D (hereinafter “instant auction”) for real estate owned by the obligor, the Suwon District Court, Pyeongtaek District Court, which commenced with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the obligor E (hereinafter “instant auction”), this Court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the amount to be actually distributed to KRW 149,726,341 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) was distributed as follows:

The establishment registration of Defendant B’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) was completed on April 30, 1998, which included a maximum debt amount of 20,000,000.

B C A

B. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire dividend against the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there is no real collateral obligation of this case. However, the foregoing collateral obligation has expired 10 years of extinctive prescription, and the obligor E cannot be deemed to have renounced extinctive prescription benefit. 2) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion was on March 6, 1998, the Defendant B lent KRW 20,000 to E, who is between Dong and Dong on March 6, 1998, and was set up as the collateral.

E, before April 19, 2019, from time to time before the death of April 19, 2019, approved part of the secured debt of this case to Defendant B, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the secured debt was suspended.

Even if the above extinctive prescription expired, the benefit of extinctive prescription ought to be deemed to have been renounced, inasmuch as there are no special circumstances to deem that E was unaware of the auction procedure of this case.

B. The Plaintiff also bears the burden of proving the grounds for objection to the distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution as to the existence of the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, in accordance with the principle of distribution in general civil procedure.