2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A. 1) The Defendant’s real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by Nonparty D (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) As to the establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”), the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) consisting of KRW 208,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(2) On the other hand, Nonparty E completed the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “BB”) with respect to the instant apartment on January 12, 201 as the date of filing a claim for the establishment of a new mortgage on January 11, 201 as the date of filing a claim for the establishment of a new mortgage on January 11, 201, the maximum debt amount was KRW 22,00,000,000, and Nonparty F (hereinafter “BB”) was changed to Nonparty G-mortgage on May 2, 2014.

(2) On May 28, 2013, in relation to the instant apartment, the Jung-gu District Court, Goyang-gu District Court, Goyang-dong District Court, the registration office, etc., established a contract on May 27, 2013 as the grounds for registration, and the maximum debt amount was KRW 37,00,000. Nonparty E filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant apartment on the grounds of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage that completed with respect to the instant apartment. Nonparty E voluntarily decided to commence auction on October 28, 2013, based on the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage that was completed with respect to the instant apartment.

Since then, the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant apartment based on the instant right to collateral security, and on January 13, 2014, there was a decision to commence voluntary auction to the Jung-gu District Court Goyang Branch C.

Since then, the case of the senior auction of the real estate B and the senior auction of the real estate C and the senior auction of the real estate at the Goyang-gu District Court was conducted in duplicate.

(2) The court below held that the court below held that the court below's decision to commence voluntary auction was unlawful, and that the court below held that the court below's decision to commence voluntary auction was unlawful, and that the court below's decision to commence voluntary auction was unlawful. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the court below's decision to commence the auction procedure of this case. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the court below's judgment.