The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

A. On Jan. 9, 1998, Defendant ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Defendant Co., Ltd) obtained a claim to register the establishment of a neighboring mortgage against the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party Co., Ltd.) as a preserved right, and received a provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal by the Jeonju District Court 98Kahap51 on Jan. 9, 1998, the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Defendant Co., Ltd) completed the provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal on Jan. 10, 1998 with respect to the apartment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the apartment of this case) of ○○○○○○-dong 330, 18, 18, ○○○○○○-dong, 18, 1998, which was owned by the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the apartment of this case) and completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral of maximum debt amount of 3,86

B. On September 25, 2001, the Defendant Company filed an application for the commencement of voluntary auction on the above ○ apartment building 22, including the apartment of this case, and received a decision to commence auction from September 25, 2001 as the support of the same support as to September 25, 2001. The Defendant Company received dividends of KRW 1,015,285,345 out of the dividends of KRW 1,180,076,969 in the auction procedure.

C. Since then, the plaintiff Jong○○, the lessee of the apartment of this case, filed an application for the commencement of compulsory auction based on the claim to refund KRW 60,000,000,000, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on January 29, 2004 from 2004 to 500. In the auction procedure, the defendant Republic of Korea received dividends of KRW 32,960,330, out of KRW 34,453,970, and the defendant Republic of Korea received dividends of KRW 32,960,330. On the other hand, the above apartment was awarded on April 25, 2005.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The plaintiffs are the cause of the claim in this case. If the defendant Republic of Korea participated in the first auction and received the distribution in the second auction, it would not have to participate in the distribution in the second auction if it would have received the distribution, and ultimately, it would not be necessary that the plaintiff ○○, a successful bidder for the apartment of this case, would not take over the obligation to return the deposit to the plaintiff ○○○, which was the successful bidder for the apartment of this case. In the second auction, the defendant Republic of Korea received the distribution of KRW 32,960,30 in the second auction, without any legal ground, is paid by the defendant company in the first auction, and the defendant Republic of Korea did not make the request for delivery in the first auction, and therefore, the defendants asserts that the above

B. Determination

On the other hand, the defendant company's participation in the first auction procedure based on the right to collateral security of KRW 3,865,611,978 against the non-party company and received dividends of KRW 1,015,285,345, and thus, cannot be deemed to gain benefit without any legal ground. In addition, it is difficult to view that the defendant company received 32,960,30 won from the second auction procedure without filing a claim for delivery in the first auction procedure, and it is difficult to view that the defendant company received 32,960,30 won from the second auction procedure and received it as unjust

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.