The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A creditor who had been registered prior to the registration of the first decision to commence the auction and has the mortgage extinguished by sale, as a matter of course, may participate in the distribution of dividends even if he/she did not demand a distribution in the auction procedure commenced upon the request of another creditor. If such creditor had reported the existence of a claim, its cause and amount to the court and exercised his/her right by reporting it to the court, the report on the claim constitutes a seizure under Article 168 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act, and becomes effective to interrupt extinctive prescription of the reported claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da28031, Sept. 9, 2010). Meanwhile, Article 175 of the Civil Act provides that “the interruption of extinctive prescription shall not be effective if the seizure is revoked upon the request of the creditor or due to the failure to comply with the provisions of law.” This is because such reason is deemed to constitute an act objectively expressing the creditor’s intention not to exercise the right from the beginning, or a legitimate exercise of right from the beginning constitutes a revocation of the auction procedure under Article 1015 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, in cases where a request for auction has been withdrawn, the interruption of extinctive prescription due to seizure as well as the interruption of extinctive prescription due to seizure, barring any special circumstance, and the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the creditor’s report on the claim, which was registered prior to the registration of the first decision to commence auction and expired due to the sale, has expired (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da28031, supra). However, in cases where the auction procedure is revoked pursuant