배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Eul evidence 3:
On July 24, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Defendant with respect to the D Apartment Nos. 101, 1011 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant on July 24, 2008, the maximum debt amount of KRW 130,000,000; (b) the obligor, the Plaintiff, and the mortgagee as the Defendant.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant collateral security” or “the establishment registration of the instant collateral security”). B.
On March 2014, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction of the instant apartment based on the foregoing collateral security to this court C, and the auction procedure was commenced on the 21st of the same month, and the instant apartment was sold to E on November 13 of the same year.
C. On the date of open distribution on December 23, 2014, the above execution court prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing KRW 72,198,219 to the defendant, who is a mortgagee, in the order of 1,090,780, and 2nd priority among the amount to be actually distributed, 203,28,99,000 won, which is to be distributed, in Incheon Bupyeong-gu, the holder of a right to deliver, the second priority, and 72,198,219 won, respectively.
On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 70,00,000 out of the amount of dividends against the Defendant as the debtor and the owner. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was paid KRW 100 million from the Defendant as investment money without interest agreement. Before the commencement of auction, the Plaintiff paid KRW 58,673,890 to the Defendant before the commencement of auction and paid KRW 41,326,110 to the Defendant’s claim. As such, the remainder of KRW 88,673,890, excluding the above amount, out of the dividend amount to the Defendant, was unlawful (i.e., KRW 130,000 - KRW 41,326,110).
3. In short, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid KRW 58,673,890 among the obligations secured by the instant right to collateral security to the Defendant.
Rather, A.