A. The Plaintiff is an owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. As to the instant real estate, Defendant B completed the establishment registration of a mortgage on November 12, 2009, with the maximum debt amount of 65,00,000,000 won as the grounds for registration, and the establishment registration of a mortgage on the Plaintiff, the debtor, and Defendant C, with the maximum debt amount of 25,00,000,000 won as the grounds for registration, and the establishment registration of a mortgage on the Plaintiff, the debtor, respectively.

C. On August 6, 2010, each of the above registrations was cancelled on the grounds of the cancellation on the 5th day of the same month, and on November 12, 2010, Defendant B, in the future, concluded a contract on August 16, 2010, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage with the same contents as the previous one (hereinafter “instant one collateral mortgage”) was completed on August 16, 2010 as the grounds for registration, and on August 16, 2010, Defendant C: (a) concluded a contract on January 18, 2010 with the same content as the previous one (hereinafter “instant two collateral mortgage”).

As to the instant real estate, Defendant B filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate amounting to KRW 50,00,00,00 in principal, KRW 38,194,520 in total, and KRW 88,194,520 in total, and KRW 64,289,105 in total, was prepared on March 8, 2016.

The Plaintiff raised an objection to the dividend amount against the Defendant B, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution with the court 2016dan208528.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant B’s judgment on this safety defense argues that since the instant real estate was sold at a voluntary auction and each of the instant secured claims was cancelled, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of the secured claims is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is highly likely to claim the remaining claims.