If a creditor participates in a compulsory auction by exercising his/her right by means of demand for distribution, report on a claim, etc., and the distribution schedule is prepared as a part of the claim interrupted by the exercise of his/her right, and the distribution schedule is again prepared as a result of only a part of the distribution amount, and the remaining part of the distribution amount excluding the part becoming the object of objection, that is, the portion not raised among the distribution amount, and the distribution schedule for the portion not distributed became final and conclusive, as such, the exercise of the right to the portion for which the distribution schedule became final and conclusive, and the period of extinctive prescription interrupted for that portion, shall resume from the end of the above period. In addition, the part of the above credit which became the object of objection against a distribution has been legally raised, and the lawsuit of objection against a distribution has become final and conclusive or revised as is, or if the distribution schedule

In the same purport, the court below, as stated in its reasoning, held that in the real estate compulsory auction procedure as stated in its holding, the claim for the principal and interest of loan including the claim in this case as a collateral security holder who had completed the registration prior to the decision on commencement of the auction, was prepared with a distribution schedule which distributes only a part of the reported claim amount, and again, the remaining portion of the distribution schedule excluding the part that became the object of objection is confirmed at the same time as the distribution schedule was prepared, and therefore, the court below's decision that the claim for the report of the portion

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff won all of the part of the reported claim which became the object of a demurrer against distribution in the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and received the entire amount of the original dividend, and even though the dividend was appropriated as part of the above reported claim, the claim of this case remains without being recovered, and thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking payment was filed. In light of these circumstances, the conclusion of the judgment below is justified in the conclusion that the court below determined that the claim of this case was included in the part excluded from the amount of the plaintiff's reported claim among the above reported claim distribution table, and that the extinctive prescription thereof was completed again from the day after the distribution schedule of the part became final and conclusive,

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interruption of extinctive prescription and the resumption of the suspended prescription period, or the differentiation of the secured debt of the right to collateral security and the right to termination of the exercise of the right, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)