1. It was prepared by the said court on October 10, 2018 with respect to the case of the voluntary auction of real estate C in the Suwon District Court branch.

Basic Facts

The Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment”) with respect to the land of 661 square meters and E forest of 330 square meters, which was owned by the Plaintiff, on January 30, 2013, under Article 4191, which was received on January 30, 2013.

On March 9, 2018, the non-party FF union received a decision to commence voluntary auction from this Court C based on the right to collateral security on forest land as stated in the above paragraph (a).

In addition, in the above auction procedure, on October 10, 2018, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the remaining KRW 8,734,632 from the actual amount of dividends to the Defendant (Defendant’s seizure authority Incheon Tax Office), who was four dividends priority.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant as the debtor and the owner. On October 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire argument by the parties concerned is invalid since the registration of establishment of a mortgage of the plaintiff of this case was null and void since there was no secured debt. Thus, the distribution of dividends to the defendant based on the registration is unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant's dividend amount should be revoked and the plaintiff should be distributed as a surplus.

The Defendant contracted the construction of a new building to the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of the establishment of a new building in order to guarantee the damages incurred by the Defendant if the Plaintiff did not properly implement the construction.

However, the plaintiff did not perform construction work at all unlike the promise, and the defendant suffered enormous damages, so the plaintiff's assertion that there is no secured obligation is without merit.

Judgment

In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof on the grounds of objection against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof of general civil procedure.