1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

In the lawsuit against the Defendant of this case, it is serious.

1. The reasons stated in this part are as stated in the second suspension of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “1. Basic Facts”) except for the submission or addition of these basic facts as follows. As such, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Since the joint Defendant B’s portion in the first instance trial became final and conclusive, “Defendant National Loan Finance Co., Ltd.,” “Defendant B,” “Defendant B,” and “Defendants,” shall be incorporated into “Defendant and Co-Defendant B in the first instance trial.”

At the end of the 19th sentence of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as “(i)” at the fifth bottom), the following shall be added:

“(The instant distribution schedule seems to have been made on the premise that the Defendant’s credit amount related to the instant land is KRW 1,89,265,800, and that the Defendant’s credit amount related to the instant building is KRW 3,031,620,200.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The time when the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant building is the time when the Plaintiff had already completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant building.

After completing the registration of the provisional seizure in this case on the building that was owned, the ownership has been transferred to H as a third party.

Therefore, the defendant is merely a third purchaser of the provisional seizure after the execution of the provisional seizure of this case, and thus, it cannot receive dividends from the proceeds of the sale of the building of this case within the scope of the prohibition of the disposal of the provisional seizure of this case.

In other words, among the proceeds from the sale of the building of this case, the amount within the scope of the prohibition of disposal of the provisional seizure of this case should be distributed first to the plaintiff, and the defendant can be distributed only to the remaining proceeds of sale.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant committed an error of distributing the entire sales price of the building of this case in proportion to the same order of priority, on the premise that they were the persons having the same order of priority.

Therefore, the Plaintiff out of the instant distribution schedule.