1. The Plaintiff, the Appointor C, the Appointor D, the Appointor D, the 22,855,339 won, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) the 10,665,825 won and the Appointor.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the person who is the mortgagee of the non-party E’s ground Gel (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On December 15, 2015, the first mortgagee of the non-party E, the first mortgagee of the non-party E, the Seoul Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “Seoul Agricultural Cooperative”), a part of the secured debt of the non-party E’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant subrogated payment”) on the non-party E’s behalf. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) are also the mortgagee of the said real estate.

B. Regarding the instant real estate, Suwon District Court Sejong District Court’s H Real Estate Compulsory Auction Case and I real estate auction case (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) were conducted at the same time. In the distribution procedure, the Plaintiff, as a mortgagee, was prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that the Plaintiff shall take six priority in the distribution order as a mortgagee, and that the Defendant, etc. shall take six priority in the distribution order.

C. On June 22, 2017, after the completion date to demand a distribution of the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff made a demand for distribution by subrogation of the said Nonghyup, in lieu of the said Nonghyup, Seoul Agricultural Cooperatives, which was the primary collateral security right, on the subrogated payment of the instant case. However, on July 12, 2017, the court of execution prepared the instant distribution schedule that excluded the said subrogated payment demanded by the Plaintiff from the subject of a distribution on the date of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, the purport of the whole pleadings described in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff should have received the distribution of the subrogated payment of this case based on the right to collateral security of the Seoul Agricultural Cooperatives, Seoul, which is a senior collateral security against the defendant, but the plaintiff was excluded from the distribution, and all of the amount was distributed to the defendant, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant, etc. is in accordance with the revised dividend rate as described in the following amended dividend items.