1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. A lawsuit concerning the plaintiff's ancillary claim added at the trial.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that the “1. Basic Facts” part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420

2. The reason why the court should explain this part of the judgment concerning the plaintiff's primary claim is as stated in the part concerning "2. The summary of the plaintiff's argument" and "3. Judgment" as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to correcting "part 5. 17" from among the judgment of the court of first instance as "Divisions" and the part concerning "3. Judgment

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate through the instant auction procedure, and the Defendant occupied the instant real estate and obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that KRW 4,125,000, which is the amount equivalent to the rent of KRW 275,00 per month from December 18, 2013 to March 17, 2015, which is the date of closing argument in the trial, should be deducted from the Defendant’s dividends.

B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

The plaintiff's lawsuit on this part is based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner who purchased the real estate in the auction procedure.

However, a person who is standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall appear on the date of distribution and raise an objection under a substantive nature as to the distribution schedule, and other persons shall be limited to the creditor or debtor, and there is no standing to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da63155, Sept. 4, 2002). Even if the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against distribution on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution, he/she shall raise an objection in the position of the applicant creditor, and the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution in such position shall not be lawful inasmuch as the status of the owner

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts.