1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional determination" as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. On October 31, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,900,000 to the Defendant, among the real estate provided as joint collateral with the instant land, equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the purchase price and the joint collateral security, out of the real estate provided as joint collateral with the instant land.

In a case where a joint mortgagee has been apportioned part of the secured debt out of the proceeds from the realization of part of the immovable property provided as joint collateral through the realization procedure of an auction, etc. conducted by another person, the joint mortgagee cannot again exercise his/her right to preferential reimbursement as a joint mortgagee in the realization procedure of the remaining immovable property provided as joint collateral, with regard to the amount preferentially reimbursed. Such legal doctrine likewise applies to a case where the secured debt exceeding the maximum debt amount is not the principal but the interest delay damages.

(2) The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da16992 Decided December 21, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da16992, Dec. 21, 2017).

Therefore, in the compulsory auction of this case, the Defendant cannot exercise the right to preferential reimbursement as a joint mortgagee regarding KRW 19,900,000, the maximum debt amount of joint collateral security.

B. On October 31, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,900,00 to the Defendant at will as the repayment of the debt for the second loan of this case, and the Defendant set up on November 1, 201, part of the object of the second mortgage of this case on the O and P land.