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

A. On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the owner of Mapopo-si E, 908 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage against the Defendant, on October 28, 2016, with respect to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage against the Defendant as the obligor, the obligor, and the mortgagee.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

On June 1, 2017, at the Defendant’s request, the procedure of the voluntary auction of real estate in this case was initiated as Gwangju District Court Gopool D on the real estate in this case.

C. On March 28, 2018, the said court prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 1,771,334,252 of the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution of the said voluntary auction procedure shall be distributed to the Defendant as a second-class mortgagee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

As a debtor and owner, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the whole amount of distribution of the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 3, 2018, which was within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s instant right to collateral security was established to invest KRW 200 million and secure it according to an investment contract concluded on September 12, 2016 between F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant investment contract”).

However, the Defendant invested only KRW 100 million among them (i.e., KRW 50 million on September 12, 2016, KRW 50 million on September 13, 2016), and there is no secured claim exceeding KRW 100 million.

Therefore, the instant distribution schedule, based on the premise that the Defendant invested KRW 200 million, should be corrected.

The Plaintiff’s claim on the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security is an investment profit claim under the instant investment contract. The Plaintiff’s claim to the effect that there is no secured debt since the project under the instant investment contract does not run smoothly.