National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

May 15, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Of the dividend table prepared by the same court on December 22, 2006, the amount of 16,526,317 won against the defendant shall be deleted, and the amount of 117,00,000,000 won against the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 133,526,317, respectively.

1. Basic facts

The Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of auction of real estate amounting to KRW 136,53,609 against the Defendant on October 2, 2003 with respect to the 2nd floor and office of this case, 345.60 square meters on the 2nd floor, 2nd floor, 344.50 square meters on the 2nd floor, 36,000 square meters on the 136,53,609 square meters on the 186th 7th 200, 200, 360 won on the 186th 7th 5th 7th 204, 206, 360, 360, 186, 206, 139, 206, 2006, 2006, 207, 306, 2006, 306, 2005, 2006, 2006, 201.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 evidence, Gap 2-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the distribution procedure, the Plaintiff asserts that, once the mortgagee has reported a claim above the maximum debt amount, if the surplus is apportioned to the other creditors, the portion exceeding the maximum debt amount should not be apportioned to the debtor and the owner of the real estate, but should be appropriated for the repayment of the debt exceeding the maximum debt amount of the mortgagee, notwithstanding the fact that the execution court excluded the distribution of 16,526,317 won exceeding the maximum debt amount of the plaintiff, and distributed it to the debtor and the defendant who is the owner of the real estate, the said distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination

In order to distribute a claim exceeding the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security, which does not have the effect of preferential reimbursement, the submission of a request for auction based on the right to collateral security or of a statement of claim. A separate demand for distribution pursuant to Article 88 of the Civil Execution Act with respect to a claim exceeding the maximum debt amount, or other claims that can be distributed, must meet the necessary requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da28216, Apr. 10, 1998), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff satisfied such requirements.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-chul