1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 6, 2011, Nanyang Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “instant real estate”) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor E under the name of 96 million won and the registration of voluntary commencement of auction as of October 10, 2013, the registration of commencement of auction was completed on the same day after receiving the registration of commencement of auction on the said real estate as D of this court on the same day.

B. Since then, the auction procedure for the above real estate was in progress. On May 14, 2014, the auction court opened a date of distribution, and prepared a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 14 million to Defendant C, the lessee of small amount of money, KRW 90,121,851 to the Busan Agricultural Cooperative, the applicant obligee of the right to collateral security interest, and KRW 3,561,234 to Defendant B, the applicant obligee of provisional registration.

C. Meanwhile, on April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff, who completed the registration of provisional disposition on the prohibition of disposal on the instant real estate on the date of the said distribution with the right to claim the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer, was present on the date of the said date and stated an objection against the dividend of the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion real estate was registered under the name of E, it was a new construction of the Plaintiff’s cost and effort, and thus, it actually owned by the Plaintiff.

However, the above provisional registration is null and void since Defendant B made a provisional registration with well-known such fact. The lease agreement of Defendant C was made after the Plaintiff’s provisional disposition was completed, and thus cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the dividend against the Defendants is erroneous.

B. The provisional disposition authority against the auction real estate does not constitute an interested party under Article 90 of the Civil Execution Act (Supreme Court Order 94Ma1534, Sept. 30, 1994). Furthermore, a person who is standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution does not appear on the date of distribution and on the distribution schedule.