1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on October 14, 2016 in the Seoul Eastern District Court C real estate auction case.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 8, 2009, D completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to Nos. 201 of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E II (hereinafter “instant real property”), which is one’s own ownership, for the Defendant (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”).

B. On May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff lent 50,000,000 won to D at an interest rate of 3% per month, and D, on the same day, drafted a promissory note (No. 348, 2013 by a notary public, a notary public, e.g., e., e., 60,000 won at an interest rate of 3% per annum.

C. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a decision of provisional seizure (Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Kadan101116) on a claim amounting to 83,00,000 of the real estate in this case with the principal and interest on the loan as a preserved bond; and (b) completed the registration of provisional seizure on the same day.

Since then, on September 4, 2015, on the application of the Korea-Japan Life Insurance Co., Ltd., a senior mortgagee on the instant real estate, the auction procedure of this case (Seoul Eastern District Court C) was commenced, and the Plaintiff demanded a distribution of KRW 83,00,000.

E. On October 14, 2016, the distribution court prepared the instant distribution schedule stating that the amount to be actually distributed as of October 14, 2016 shall be KRW 254,209,071, which shall be KRW 357,980, and KRW 168,032,141, and KRW 1650 shall be distributed to the Defendant (the applicant creditor and the senior mortgagee) in the second order in the Gwangjin-gu (the right to issue the pertinent tax), respectively.

The plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the total amount of distribution to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1 had no claim against D, and in collusion with D, received false establishment of the instant right to collateral security.

Therefore, the dividend portion of the instant distribution schedule against the Defendant ought to be entirely deleted as it was based on invalid collateral security.