1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to the Cheongju District Court B real estate auction case B

1. The reasoning of this court’s reasoning is as follows: “Cheongju District Court 201Kadan28, Cheongju District Court 201Kadan28,” which is “Cheongju District Court 2011Kadan28, Cheongju District Court 201Kadan28,” is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination

A. If the provisional attachment order issued by the creditor has been revoked, the creditor loses the status of receiving a dividend as the creditor of provisional attachment. Therefore, the revocation of the provisional attachment order may constitute a ground for demurrer against the distribution against the creditor of provisional attachment in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

Furthermore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff may assert as a ground for objection the grounds for objection that occurred after the date of distribution to the date of closing argument in the fact-finding court. Thus, even in a case where the provisional attachment decision was revoked during the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution after

(Supreme Court Decision 2015Da10523 Decided June 11, 2015). B.

According to the overall purport of evidence evidence Nos. 15 and 16 and all the arguments, the plaintiff filed an application against the defendant for revocation of the provisional seizure order No. 201Kadan28 with the Cheongju District Court 2016Kadan1092, Jan. 5, 2011, and on August 11, 2016, the provisional seizure order was revoked on the ground that "the defendant did not file a lawsuit against the defendant for three years after the execution of the provisional seizure." The defendant filed an appeal with the Cheongju District Court 2016Ra256, but the appeal was dismissed on June 2, 2017, and the decision to revoke the provisional seizure became final and conclusive thereafter.

Ultimately, since the defendant lost the status to receive dividends as a creditor of provisional seizure in the auction procedure of this case, the above amount of dividends against the defendant should be distributed additionally to the plaintiff as a mortgagee.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the ground of its conclusion.