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

A. On March 21, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on October 16, 2014 with respect to the registration of ownership transfer under D’s name (the sale on February 22, 2013, the cause of the registration), 200 million won, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the registration of ownership transfer with the debtor D.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

On May 4, 2018, at the request of the FF association, which is another mortgagee of the instant land, the procedure for the auction of real estate in Gwangju District Court C (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was initiated.

C. On February 1, 2018, prior to the commencement of the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of D, received a provisional attachment order on the instant land as the Gwangju District Court Branch 2018Kadan50 on February 1, 2018.

In the auction procedure of this case, the land of this case was sold at KRW 247,390,000 and the auction court prepared the distribution schedule of this case to the National Health Insurance Corporation (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor/Do governor), which is the applicant creditor, with the first priority of KRW 250,530,00,000 and KRW 80,123,966, and KRW 930,960, KRW 136,560, KRW 136,568, KRW 2568, KRW 678, and KRW 795,796, and KRW 7965, and KRW 796, the distribution schedule of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule of this case") to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, the applicant creditor, with the second priority of KRW 250,530,960 and KRW 136,65,121, and KRW 44, who is the right of provisional seizure.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff stated that there was an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant among the instant distribution schedule.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and the key issue is that the right to collateral security in the name of the defendant was established without any legal act that establishes the secured claim, and thus, the defendant does not have the right to receive dividends in the auction procedure of this case.