1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. E owned the H of the 20th floor of the building G (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On April 18, 2008, in order to secure the debt owed to the E Company I (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”), the Gangnam-gu Seoul, and nine parcels of land (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). In order to secure the debt owed to the E Company I (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”), E created a collateral security (the maximum debt amount) worth KRW 1.32 billion in the future of the Nonparty Bank.

B. As to the instant real estate, the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was established on May 29, 2008 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million, the debtor E, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”). On November 7, 2008, the additional registration of the transfer of collateral security was completed on the ground of transfer of contract on the same date in the future of the defendant.

E, around November 2008, the defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the defendant and stated that the mortgage of this case was transferred to the defendant as security.

(See subparagraph (2)(c).

After that, on July 1, 2009, E created the right to collateral security with the obligor E in the future of K with respect to the real estate in this case.

On the other hand, on February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff seized the instant real estate on the ground that it did not pay taxes to E.

E. Since then, the Seoul Central District Court C, the decision to commence compulsory auction was made to the same court B, and the decision to commence voluntary auction was issued to the same court D as the decision to commence voluntary auction was made.

F. On May 31, 2019, the foregoing court prepared the attached Table (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) and raised an objection against KRW 260,000,000 of the Defendant’s amount of distribution at the date of distribution on May 31, 2019.

(A) The debtor and the owner E were absent on the date of the above distribution (which is the ground for recognition). [The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1 expired after the lapse of ten years from May 29, 2008.