1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 2015, the Defendant applied for a payment order seeking a loan of KRW 1.5 billion and damages for delay against Cheongju District Court Decision 2015 tea1943, and received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court on June 4, 2015. The instant payment order was finalized on June 26, 2015.

B. The Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction on the instant auction subject matter in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, the title of the instant payment order, F forest, G forest, H forest, which was owned by D; 709.24/7209 shares among H forest; Cheong-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, the I forest, and J forest (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant auction subject matter”), and rendered a judgment of compulsory auction on October 23, 2015

C. As to the subject matter of the auction in the instant case, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on December 28, 2015 with the maximum amount of debt KRW 7.12 billion, which was caused by the contract to establish a mortgage as the Plaintiff on December 10, 2015, and the contract as of December 10, 2015.

On April 26, 2017, on the date of distribution open on April 26, 2017, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that each of the amount of KRW 6,465,98,98,876,718, and the amount of dividends to the Defendant of the instant distribution schedule was distributed to the Defendant of the second applicant creditor (a final judgment), the Defendant of the third applicant creditor (a final judgment), the third applicant creditor (a final judgment), and the third applicant creditor (a final judgment). On April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the entire amount of dividends to the Defendant of the instant distribution schedule.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 16 to 20 (including, if any, various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff’s claim against D against the Defendant’s assertion was false invalid, the instant distribution schedule was formulated with the content that distributes each amount as seen in the above basic facts to the Defendant. This is unfair, and thus, it is so stated in the purport of the claim.