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

A. E applied for a voluntary auction with the Incheon Bupyeong-gu Incheon District Court D on the basis of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) on June 21, 2018. (b) On May 22, 2019, the said court prepared a distribution list that distributes the amount of claims KRW 19,054,274 out of the amount of claims KRW 30,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff who was the right to collateral security and KRW 23,83,267 out of the amount of claims to the Defendant who was the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the dividend list of this case”).

(c)

The Plaintiff’s agent appeared on the dividend date and raised an objection against KRW 10,945,726 out of the dividend amount to the Defendant. On May 29, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for objection to the instant dividend.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Defendant’s summary of the assertion did not establish a secured claim against the Defendant’s right to collateral security or expired due to the lapse of the prescription period, the instant dividend table ought to be corrected to reduce the Defendant’s dividend amount to KRW 23,83,267 to KRW 12,887,541 and to distribute the difference to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) A lawsuit for objection to distribution is sought for the alteration of the distribution list or the preparation of a new distribution list in order to reduce the amount of dividends of a person entered in the distribution list to be distributed to him/her. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion and verification that the Defendant’s claim did not exist in order to win a lawsuit for objection to distribution ought to be asserted and proved to the effect that he/she has the right to receive dividends from the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da9398, Jun. 25, 2004; 2010Da42259, Jul. 12, 2012). (2) The Plaintiff’s claim for provisional seizure has a health care area where the Plaintiff’s claim for 30 million won exists, and the health care area A.2, 3, and 3.