1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of F 1,544 square meters, G 469 square meters, H 1,157 square meters (in the following cases, the Plaintiff was the owner of each of the instant real estate by adding the said three parcels to “the instant real estate”).

With respect to each of the instant real estates, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) that was made against the Defendants of the obligor I and the mortgagee was completed on December 30, 2004 by the Suwon District Court, the Sungsung Branch of the District Court, No. 148648, Dec. 30, 2004, under the Act No. 148648, Dec. 30, 2004.

B. The Defendants filed an application for voluntary auction on the ground of the instant right to collateral security, and the judicial assistant officers of this court accepted the said application and rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction on August 19, 2014, and on the same day, the purport thereof was stated and registered.

C. On July 6, 2015, the instant court preferentially distributed KRW 81,980 among the amount to be actually distributed out of the proceeds from the sale on the date of distribution of the said voluntary auction procedure, 109,889,198, among the amount to be actually distributed to the person holding the right to deliver, the remainder of KRW 109,807,218, and distributed the Defendants each amount of KRW 36,602,406, and the Plaintiff raised an objection to the dividend amount of the Defendants, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution of the instant amount on July 9, 2015, within one week thereafter.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1-4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The burden of proving the existence of the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security with the burden of proof lies on the part of claiming the existence of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). In a case where the claimant asserts that the right to collateral security is null and void despite the existence of the said legal act, it is the same as in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da32178, Nov. 14, 1997; 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007); and