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

Preliminary, on June 5, 2013, the non-party 1 (the non-party: the non-party) filed with the defendant on June 5, 2013, the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, on June 20, 1998, declared that the secured claim for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring apartment ○○○○○○○, Daejeon District Court, which was completed on June 20, 1998, should be revoked an expression of intent to waive the prescription benefit.In relation to the case of the application for compulsory auction of real estate at Daejeon District Court, 2,093,056 won against the plaintiff among the distribution schedule prepared on June 5, 2013, the court filed a claim for the preliminary decision that the amount of the secured claim against the defendant should be corrected to KRW 5,865,464 won, and KRW 50,000,000 against the defendant (the plaintiff was added to the court of first instance).

A. The Plaintiff (Seoul District Court 200DaGa63030) filed a suit against Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 (Seoul District Court 2009DaDa120185) on the ground that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in bankruptcy filed a suit against Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 3 ( Daejeon District Court 2003Gada29407) was acquired by transfer of the claim pursuant to the final decision of performance recommendation or final decision of the suit against Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 4; ② the claim against Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4 ( Daejeon District Court 2004DaGa63030); ③ the claim against Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 pursuant to the Daejeon District Court 205Da12095) was acquired by transfer of the claim against Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1; ④ the claim against Nonparty 2, Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 1 pursuant to the final decision of the Daejeon District Court 250 days (Seoul District Court 205Da154656, May 26, 2014).

B. On the other hand, on June 20, 1998, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) against the defendant, who owned the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 as the defendant of the mid-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City △△△△dong (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

C. After that, the plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction on the instant real estate, and accordingly, the Daejeon District Court rendered a ruling to commence compulsory auction at around 17359, Daejeon District Court around 201. Accordingly, the court of execution did not raise an objection against the dividends to the defendant on the date of distribution under the first priority order of the defendant, who was a collateral security right, on June 5, 2013 after the sale of the instant real estate. The court of execution, who was a collective security right, raised an objection against the distribution of the real estate in the distribution procedure that was in progress after the sale of the said real estate, in full of the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,093,056 (principal principal amount of KRW 25,616,540) and KRW 12,862,875 (principal principal amount of KRW 157,426,449).

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no mutual dispute between Gap's evidence 1-5, Gap's evidence 2-1-3, Gap's evidence 3-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case was invalid when the Defendant did not have a claim against the above non-party 1, or the secured debt of the Defendant’s establishment of a new mortgage of this case was extinguished at least after the lapse of 10 years from June 20, 1998, which was the date of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case (the Plaintiff asserts the expiration of the extinctive prescription period on behalf of the non-party 1 for the purpose of securing the claim against the non-party 1). If the non-party 1 renounced the statute of limitations interest, the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage of this case made by the non-party 1 to the defendant on June 5, 2013 is revoked since the declaration of intent to waive the statute of limitations interest, which was completed by the non-party 16329 on June 20, 198, the entire amount distributed to the defendant should be adjusted in proportion to the claim amount of the plaintiff’s claim against the non-party 1.

3. Determination

A. First, there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case as to the assertion that the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was completed in collusion with the non-party 1, although the defendant did not have a claim against the non-party 1, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the non-party 1 is deemed to have a claim of KRW 50 million against the defendant. Ultimately, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. 1) Next, as to the assertion that the secured claim has expired by prescription, it is apparent that the secured claim of this case, which was completed in the future of the defendant, has expired far more than 10 years ( June 20, 2008) from June 20, 1998, where the secured claim of this case was established, barring special circumstances, the secured claim of this case, which was completed in the future of the defendant, has expired by prescription.

2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that Nonparty 1 renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription after the completion of the prescription period, in full view of the facts acknowledged as above, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the items in subparagraphs 3-1 and 2 of subparagraphs B, Nonparty 1, on January 20, 2012, acknowledged that he reported the Defendant’s claim as rehabilitation claim to the creditors’ list on January 20, 2012, and on the other hand, Article 32 subparag. 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the prescription period shall be interrupted in such a case. Since the obligor’s approval after the completion of the prescription period shall be deemed as waiver of the benefit of prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da4872, Mar. 27, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Da4872, Mar. 27, 1992) and Nonparty 1 renounced the benefit of prescription.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the application for individual rehabilitation filed by Nonparty 1 was dismissed without a decision of commencement, the waiver of the prescription benefit becomes null and void. However, as the above law does not contain any provision that the interruption of prescription is null and void if the application for individual rehabilitation is dismissed without a decision of commencement, and there is no reason to invalidate it, and it does not apply to Article 170(1) of the Civil Act (in the case of dismissal of a lawsuit, dismissal, or withdrawal, the interruption of prescription shall not be effective) by analogy, the Plaintiff’

3) In addition, on June 5, 2013, the date of distribution of this case, Nonparty 1 did not raise any objection as to the distribution of KRW 50,000 to the Defendant upon the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case, there is no dispute between the Defendant and the Defendant. In this regard, Nonparty 1 may be deemed to have renounced the benefits of prescription by approving the Defendant’s claim. Ultimately, the Defendant’s assertion of waiver of the benefits of prescription has merit.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the debtor’s act of giving up the statute of limitations after the expiration of the statute of limitations is a fraudulent act subject to creditor’s right of revocation, and that the non-party 1 did not object to distribution on the date of distribution on June 5, 2013, as the declaration of intent to waive the statute of limitations interest, is a fraudulent act, and thus, it is a fraudulent act, and thus, the distribution schedule should

However, as seen earlier, Nonparty 1 had already filed an application for individual rehabilitation on January 20, 2012, and given up the benefit of prescription by approving the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant on the creditor list, and thus, remains effective, it does not constitute a fraudulent act separate from the fact that Nonparty 1 did not object to the distribution on June 5, 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's main claims and conjunctive claims in this case are dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as to the main claims. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's additional conjunctive claims in the trial are without merit.

Judges Choi Sung-jin (Presiding Judge)