1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 2005, with respect to Pyeongtaek-si E apartment 108 Dong 1405 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned D, the registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “instant mortgage registration”) was completed on March 7, 201 by the “the maximum amount of the claim” of KRW 65,00,000,000, debtor F and the Defendant of the mortgagee,” and on March 7, 2011, the registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) was completed.

B. On February 25, 2015, H applied for a compulsory auction on the instant apartment as Suwon District Court B and C (dupl) and made a decision to commence compulsory auction from the said court (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). On December 24, 2015, H drafted a distribution schedule with the content that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff at all due to the lack of distribution resources (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). On December 24, 2015, H prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff at all on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure.

C. On the date of distribution of this case, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim, since the instant registration of collateral security is invalid without any actual secured claim.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 9, the defendant lent 65,000,000 won to D at an annual interest rate of 24% on April 5, 2005 (hereinafter “the lending of this case”) and the fact that the registration of the right to collateral security of this case has been completed as a security therefor can be acknowledged. Thus, the plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B. Next, the Plaintiff’s loan debt of this case is from September 28, 2005, which was the time of establishment of the mortgage registration of this case.