1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a monetary claim against D with the Jeju District Court 2013 tea502 decision.

Creditor A4

B. D was unable to repay the above bonds, and the auction procedure of this case was in progress for one parcel outside Seopo-si E (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff.

C. On April 26, 2019, the date of distribution of the instant auction, the Defendant received a dividend of KRW 40 million in the position of a mortgagee, but the Plaintiff received a distribution of KRW 30 million in the position of a creditor requesting auction, despite having demanded a distribution of the principal of KRW 400 million in the position of a creditor requesting auction.

The plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution of the defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the lawsuit of this case on April 30, 199, within one week thereafter.

E. Meanwhile, with respect to the instant land, the maximum debt amount of KRW 40 million, the debtor D, the mortgagee and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) established on September 23, 1998 on the 24th of the same month on the ground that the contract to establish the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant contract”) as the ground for registration.

(hereinafter) The fact that there is no dispute over D’s obligation secured by the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant secured obligation”). [The grounds for recognition], the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) D had already repaid the secured debt of this case, and thus, the secured debt of this case was extinguished. Accordingly, the distribution of dividends to the Defendant is null and void. 2) The extinctive prescription of the secured debt of this case was proceeded from September 24, 1998 where the secured debt of this case was established, and ten years have elapsed thereafter, the secured debt of this case was extinguished after the lapse of the extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the distribution of dividends to the defendant is null and void.

B. 1) Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that D has repaid the secured obligation of this case, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.