1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on July 31, 2014, the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared on July 31, 2014 in the Busan District Court Support C and D (Dual) real estate auction cases.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 21, 201, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order of KRW 50,00,000,000, which was issued by the obligor E as of April 27, 201, and registered the provisional attachment as to the instant apartment on April 27, 201. The Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring apartment on the ground of the contract concluded on April 29, 201 with E as the obligor on April 29, 201 and with the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,00,000.

B. On July 31, 2014, at the instant auction procedure commenced with respect to the instant apartment owned by E, a distribution schedule was formulated to distribute KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, and KRW 20,261,806 to the Plaintiff, who is a person having the right to demand a distribution, who is a person having the right to demand a distribution.

The amount of the claim that the Defendant reported on the right or demanded the distribution was KRW 661,406,616 (=principal amount of KRW 397,453,762).

Meanwhile, from February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E on the merits (Jancheon District Court Branch Decision 201Gahap1766) to the effect that “E shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 113,233,160 and interest or delay damages thereon,” which became final and conclusive on September 28, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the said auction case and raised an objection to the total amount of dividends against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 3, 4, 7

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant collateral security agreement, which was concluded between the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) and the Defendant, should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim due to the restitution to its original state.

(2) Since the defendant's right to collateral security was established after the provisional seizure of the plaintiff, it should be distributed equally in proportion to the plaintiff's claim amount of provisional seizure and the defendant's maximum debt amount, the execution court recognized the defendant

B. Defendant’s assertion ① The instant collateral security agreement is not a speculative act, but the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary.

(2) The court shall decide whether to distribute a bill.