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

A. The Plaintiff was supplied with KRW 80 million from C, and agreed to register the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 80 million with respect to the E building Nos. 118, 403, 118, and 403 (hereinafter “instant real property”) of the E building in Yangju-si, which was owned by the Plaintiff’s wife D as a security for the said cost of supply between C and C. The Plaintiff agreed to register the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 80 million.

Since then, the Plaintiff repaid the original supply amount, which is the secured debt, to C.

B. However, on January 25, 2013, the establishment registration of a mortgage with F, other than C, as a mortgagee, and with the maximum debt amount of KRW 80 million, was completed with respect to the instant real estate. On June 3, 2013, the additional registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security was completed for the Defendant on June 3, 2013.

C. Since the Plaintiff did not have concluded a mortgage contract between F and the Defendant, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the above F name and the additional registration of the transfer of the right to collateral in the name of the Defendant must be cancelled as invalid registration.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received the distribution of KRW 58,528,303 as a mortgagee of the instant real estate in the discretionary auction procedure (B) regarding the instant real estate.

E. Therefore, since the registration of the establishment of a mortgage or the supplementary registration thereof, which served as the basis for the above dividends, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage or the supplementary registration thereof, is invalid, all of the dividend amount to the defendant should be deleted and corrected as the dividend amount to

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A person who has standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be limited to the creditor or debtor who has appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection under substantive law against the distribution schedule.

With respect to this case, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution in the distribution procedure (B) for the real estate of this case and raised an objection.

Rather, according to Gap evidence No. 6, the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate of this case and the debtor-applicant.