1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The basic facts C had been registered as the owner of the D Apartment No. 101, 801, and 801 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, with respect to the instant real estate, the auction procedure [the U.S. Government District Court Goyang-si A and B(Dual Real Estate) commenced and sold to a third party, and the distribution procedure was initiated accordingly.

The Defendant, as a mortgagee of the instant real estate (the maximum amount of claims KRW 78 million), participated in each of the above distribution procedures as a person having the right to demand a distribution based on the payment order set forth in the order of payment order, the Goyang-si District Court 2014 tea3774, Goyang-si District Court 201.

On February 2, 2017, the above auction court set up a distribution schedule that distributes the balance of KRW 3,683,485 to the defendant, who is a collateral security (the claim amount shall be KRW 90,095,788) among the amount to be distributed other than the execution cost, in the first priority order, to the defendant, who is a collateral security (the claim amount shall be KRW 90,095,788), and to the right to demand distribution including the plaintiff, the right to demand a provisional attachment, etc., in the second priority order. The plaintiff raised an objection against the said distribution schedule.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) with respect to the surplus (3,683,485 won) to be distributed to C as the owner in the distribution procedure of this case, C received a seizure and collection order prior to the preparation of the distribution schedule; and (b) other creditors C received a provisional seizure order regarding the above surplus, it is unreasonable to distribute the surplus to the Defendant.

B. In an auction procedure under the Civil Execution Act, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security shall be limited to the creditor entitled to dividends under Article 148 of the Civil Execution Act, or the third party purchaser of the real estate, if the debtor is the same as the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and it shall be within the maximum debt amount.