1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on September 24, 2015 in the case of a compulsory auction by Sungwon District Court Sung-nam Branch C real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. Daejeon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) lent KRW 2,400,000,000 to D on June 13, 2007, and KRW 438,000,00,000 on March 31, 2009, respectively, to Daejeon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) without asking before and after bankruptcy, for convenience.

B. On February 10, 2012, D completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) that constitutes a maximum debt amount of 156,000,000 with respect to the instant building owned by Defendant A (B) (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”).

C. The Plaintiff obtained a payment order (Seoul District Court 2014 tea2075) ordering D to pay the above loan, and applied for a compulsory auction on the instant building as an executive title. On February 3, 2015, the compulsory auction procedure of this case was commenced.

On September 24, 2015, the instant distribution schedule was prepared with the content that Defendant B distributes KRW 19,00,000 to Defendant B, KRW 82,842,542 to Defendant A, and KRW 108,676,496 to the Plaintiff to the third priority (creditor).

On June 2010, the Plaintiff transferred D’s claim to the Korea Asset Management Corporation. On December 20, 2010 and August 12, 2011, the Korea Asset Management Corporation completed provisional attachment registration, which caused the total amount of claim 180,000,000, based on D’s claim amount as preserved bonds.

On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Korea Asset Management Corporation resolved the agreement on the acquisition of the above bonds.

Accordingly, the plaintiff (creditor of compulsory auction) and the defendant A (mortgager after provisional seizure) have received dividends in the same order according to their respective claims ratio.

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of the dividend to the Defendants.

2. As to the claim against the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant”)

A. As to the primary claim (the assertion that the false indication is invalid), one of the plaintiff's claims subrogated the debt D by the defendant and the right to collateral security in this case.