1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 23, 2016, with respect to the instant real estate and its ground buildings owned by the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”), the auction procedure was commenced with the Seoul Western District Court C (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) on November 23, 2016, upon the application for auction by the Plaintiff of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Western District Court”) and the said real estate was adjudicated to a third party on May 30, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff is a creditor of a loan against the Defendant. After the registration of the decision on commencing auction of the instant auction procedure was completed, the registration of provisional seizure of real estate was completed on April 28, 2017, with the real estate of this case as “creditor” and “the claimed amount of KRW 6 million.”

C. After the completion date of the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff filed a report on his/her right to, and demanded a distribution of, his/her loan claims.

On July 13, 2017, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the sales proceeds of the real estate in this case shall be distributed to senior creditors, and that the remaining remaining amount shall be 35,540,005 won shall be distributed to the defendant who is the debtor and the owner at the fifth order.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividend amount, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 14, 2017, which was within seven days thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the part of KRW 6,434,749 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant against the Defendant should be distributed to himself/herself, who is the provisional attachment obligee, and sought revision of the instant distribution schedule.

B. A person who has standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer 1 is present on the date of distribution and raised an objection under substantive law against the distribution schedule, and in order for a creditor to be present on the date of distribution and raise an objection against the distribution schedule, it is insufficient to say that he is a creditor against the enforcement obligor under substantive law.