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

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a compulsory auction on three parcels of real estate, other than 1441m2, Gangwon-gun, Suwon-gun, Gangwon-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On January 9, 2007, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), at the payment order against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant payment order”), at the time of filing a motion for compulsory auction against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). On January 9, 2007, at the Seocheon District Court Branch 2007Mota130, the said court (hereinafter “execution court”).

B. In the instant auction procedure, on December 27, 2007, the executing court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the Plaintiff, the creditor, shall be KRW 41,425,159, and that the Defendant, the debtor and the owner shall distribute KRW 31,938,854, respectively (hereinafter “the first distribution schedule”).

C. On the date of distribution, the defendant raised an objection against the plaintiff on December 31, 2007 against the plaintiff, and on December 31, 2007, the defendant filed a lawsuit of objection (2007Kadan344, the Pyeongtaek-gun court, the Pyeongtaek-gun court, the Young-gun court, the Young-gun court of the Chuncheon District Court, and the "the suspension of compulsory execution of this case"). However, the decision to suspend compulsory execution (the "the suspension of compulsory execution of this case" was submitted to the execution court on February 11, 2008.

D. The plaintiff was sentenced on July 24, 2008 to the judgment that "the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted" from the Chuncheon District Court's Young-gun Branch of Yeongdeungpo-gun Branch of Young-gun Branch. However, on May 22, 2009, the plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that "the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted only to the portion exceeding 5,290,140 won and the amount exceeding the rate of 20% per annum from May 14, 2002 to the day of full payment." The second appeal was made, but the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive as it is.

E. On January 3, 2008, the Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution (Yancheon District Court Youngcheon District Court Young-gu Branch 2008Gadan42), separately from the lawsuit of demurrer against the instant claim, and withdrawn the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on February 4, 2009, and submitted to the enforcement court a certificate of withdrawal of the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on February 5, 2009.

F. The U.S. Credit Union, a creditor of the Plaintiff, provisionally attached the Plaintiff’s dividend claim (Yancheon District Court Youngcheon Branch Branch 2009Kadan399).

G. On October 22, 2009, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the remainder of KRW 28,361,164 to the Defendant, who is the debtor and the owner of the instant claim, on October 22, 2009 (hereinafter “the second distribution schedule”). The court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the remainder of KRW 28,361,164 to the Defendant, who is the debtor and the owner of the instant claim.

H. The Plaintiff raised an objection on the second distribution schedule on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 29, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant submitted a written decision suspending compulsory execution one week after the date of distribution, and since a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution was withdrawn after the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the defendant's objection against distribution shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Therefore, the court of execution shall prepare a distribution schedule in accordance with the first

3. Determination

A. Determination on the main defense of this case

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has no interest in the lawsuit in accordance with the second distribution schedule, since the plaintiff was paid dividends according to the final judgment of the lawsuit on the objection of this case in accordance with the second distribution schedule and the lawsuit of this case does not constitute losses.

However, according to the plaintiff's assertion, if the amount of dividends of the defendant is reduced, the amount of dividends of the plaintiff will increase as much as the reduced amount (the contents of the defendant's dispute are as follows).

B. Judgment on the merits

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is recognized only as “5,290,140 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from May 14, 2002 to the date of full payment” in accordance with the appellate judgment of the instant claim objection case.

Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking modification of the second distribution schedule is without merit, as long as the Plaintiff’s claim is not acknowledged to exceed the amount recognized in the second distribution schedule even if there is a defect in the distribution procedure of the instant auction procedure, as so alleged by the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Jin-jin