1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff Company concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the maximum debt amounting to KRW 50 million with respect to KRW 1419 square meters for Pyeongtaek-si D, and KRW 93 square meters for E forest land (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was owned by the Plaintiff Company, with the Defendant, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) to the Defendant on the following day.

B. On January 15, 2014, the instant real estate had been decided to commence voluntary auction at this court. On April 23, 2015, the instant court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 45,389,025 to the Defendant on the date of distribution of the said auction procedure.

C. On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff Company raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to Defendant on the aforementioned date of distribution, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on April 30, 2015, within a week from that date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including each number), facts with merit in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The burden of proving the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In the event that the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims that the claim has become null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy or has become extinguished by repayment,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007). B.

First, both claims of the Plaintiff Company 1, the instant collateral security is invalid because there is no secured claim.

Second, the mortgage contract of this case is 50 million won to the defendant if the construction business of the plaintiff company regarding the real estate of this case is smoothly carried out.