A. On May 10, 2005, Defendant (Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund: hereinafter “instant provisional attachment order”) received a provisional attachment order of KRW 131,800,000 as to each real estate listed in the separate attachment list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and received a provisional attachment order of KRW 131,80,000 as to each real estate listed in the separate attachment list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

5.11. Completion of provisional seizure registration.

B. D completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the instant real estate by the Seocheon Branch of Gwangju District Court No. 1445, Jan. 12, 2007, which was received on January 12, 2007.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate as stated in the purport of the claim regarding the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant auction”), and the instant real estate was sold on September 14, 2018.

On October 30, 2018, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the “distribution schedule of this case”) that distributes the amount of KRW 17,273,904 (the claimed amount of KRW 131,80,000) to the Defendant, a person holding the provisional attachment of this case, and KRW 78,636,892 (the highest claim amount of KRW 600,000) to the Plaintiff, a mortgagee of the right to collateral security, in the same second order, remaining after distributing the execution expenses and senior creditors to the creditor.

E. On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff stated an objection to the whole amount of the Defendant’s dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1's evidence 1 to Gap 2, Gap 5's evidence 1 to 5, Eul 1's evidence 1 to Eul 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the application for intervention by succession

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion succeeding intervenor filed a motion for intervention in succession on the ground that the Defendant acquired the preserved claim against the decision of provisional seizure of this case from the date of distribution, but failed to vindicate the fact of transfer prior to the date of distribution. The Defendant stated in the distribution schedule in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and the Plaintiff was the other party who raised an objection on the date of distribution.