1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2007, Jeju District Court C rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) on the land B and the building on the ground, and on the same day, the registration of the decision to commence the auction was entered.

B. On October 24, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for provisional seizure on the above real estate, and on November 8, 2007, the registration of provisional seizure was entered.

C. The completion period for the demand for distribution determined by the court of execution in the above auction procedure was January 21, 2008, and the plaintiff made a demand for distribution on June 11, 2008.

In the distribution procedure of the above auction case conducted on August 22, 2008, the Plaintiff did not receive any distribution at all, and the Jeju Credit Union received the distribution of KRW 103,870,101 in total, as a general creditor, of KRW 88,492,976 as a mortgagee and KRW 15,377,125 as a general creditor.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 6 through 9 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that, under the premise that the law setting the completion period for demand for distribution, such as Article 84 (1) of the Civil Execution Act, which prescribes the completion period for demand for distribution goes against Article 23 of the Constitution on the Guarantee of Property Rights, the claims recorded in the register of real estate register within the completion date for demand for distribution should be protected as absolute rights, notwithstanding the fact that the head of Jeju District Court did not report the claims within the completion date for demand for distribution based on the above unconstitutional law, the plaintiff's act of not allowing dividends to the plaintiff constitutes a tort, and thus, should compensate the plaintiff for 15,73

3. Article 84(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides, “When a seizure following the decision on commencing auction has become effective (excluding cases where another decision on commencing auction has already been rendered prior to the said decision on commencing auction), the court of execution shall set the completion period to demand a distribution prior to the first sale date, taking into account the period required for the procedure.”