A. On October 31, 2013, E completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on five lots of ground G apartment H (hereinafter “instant real property”) on the Defendant, the Daejeon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F, and five lots of ground G apartment H (hereinafter “instant real property”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 20 million, E, the debtor, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land”).

B. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff set the amount of KRW 30 million at 25% per annum to I and lent it to I.

E, on the same day, jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of I with the above loan, and on August 6, 2014, in order to secure the above joint and several debt, E completed the registration of creation of mortgage near the maximum debt amount of 30 million won with respect to the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

C. In the Daejeon District Court C’s compulsory auction or D(Dual) auction of real estate regarding the instant real estate, the above execution court, in the order of August 3, 2016, prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes each of the KRW 6,768,081 to the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the creditor of the right to request a auction (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) in the fourth order.

On the date of distribution of the said auction case, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of dividends to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on August 8, 2016, which was within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the secured debt of the instant establishment registration is a claim against J (hereinafter "J") E, and that the establishment registration of the instant establishment is null and void because the secured debt of the instant establishment registration is not the same person as the secured mortgage holder and the secured debt holder. Thus, the defendant asserts that the amount of dividends received in the instant distribution procedure as the secured mortgage holder should be deleted and distributed to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant, who is the husband of K and the actual representative of J, can be repaid the above secured debt by E.