1. From among the distribution schedule prepared on August 2, 2017 by the same court in the auction case of the real estate B located in Busan District Court Dong branch of Busan District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 5, 2013, Nonparty C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on April 2, 2012, with respect to No. 105 of the first floor of the building D, Suwon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On March 26, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the ground of the contract concluded on March 14, 2014, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million on the instant real estate as the debtor C.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

In order to preserve the claim against Nonparty C, the Plaintiff obtained a decision of provisional seizure of real estate with the claim amounting to KRW 732 million from September 11, 2015 by Busan District Court 2015Kadan6790 on September 11, 2015, and provisionally seized the instant real estate on the same day.

On November 18, 2015, the Busan District Court rendered a decision to commence an auction of real estate B with respect to the instant real estate, and on August 22, 2017, the distribution schedule was prepared to the Defendant, who was the mortgagee, to pay KRW 21,676,848 to the Defendant, who was the mortgagee on the date of distribution, and the Plaintiff did not receive any distribution at all.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the full amount of the Defendant’s dividend.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence A1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s right to collateral security is null and void by taking custody of the instant real estate upon delegation by Nonparty E, the owner of Nonparty E, and by stealing’s seal, etc.

Even if the obligor of the instant collateral security is C, even according to the Defendant’s assertion itself, C does not bear any loan obligations against the Defendant, and even if the Defendant’s loan claims against Nonparty E are real, it cannot be deemed as the collateral obligation of the instant collateral security.

3 The defendant's loan claims against non-party E exist.

Even if the defendant has received payment in cash after he remitted a total of KRW 220 million to E, 20 million shall be deemed to have been paid in cash.