1. The distribution schedule prepared on June 21, 2018 by the said court with respect to the case of the voluntary auction of real estate C with the Seogu District Court Western Branch C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 1996, D completed the registration of creation of a mortgage near the maximum debt amount of 19 million won on the ground of the contract to establish a mortgage on July 15, 1996 with respect to the land and its ground buildings owned by D, Daegu-gu E (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

On February 9, 2012, in Daegu District Court Decision 201Gau161271, the Plaintiff and D and F, “D and F shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 9,680,295, and KRW 2,400,000 among them, 19% per annum from July 6, 2011 to January 10, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized on February 29, 2012.

C. On June 21, 2018, the distribution schedule was prepared, which distributes KRW 16,112,700, based on the instant collateral security to the Defendant, and KRW 104,437, out of KRW 13,009,52, out of the amount of claim 13,009,522 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

On June 21, 2018, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the fact that “the instant right to collateral security has not been exercised for several years,” the Plaintiff asserts that the secured claim was extinguished upon the completion of extinctive prescription on July 15, 2006, when ten years have passed since July 15, 1996, where the right to collateral security was created, and that “the instant right to collateral security should be revised accordingly.”

On July 15, 1996, the defendant lent 19 million won to D without fixing the due date for payment, and the mortgage of this case was established as security.

It argues that “the” is “the case.

B. The defendant.