Since there is no right to receive dividends in excess of the upper limit of the claim already received, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as seen earlier is without merit, on the premise that the Plaintiff has a legitimate right to receive dividends in excess of the maximum debt amount already apportioned to the Plaintiff, unless there is any proof by the Plaintiff regarding this part.

2011 Gohap94184 Demurrer against distribution

AAAA Loan Limited Liability Company

Three Seocho-gu other

March 8, 2012

March 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

With respect to the auction case of real estate rent in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007TTW 2481, the same court prepared on September 1, 2011, KRW 5,397,490 for the defendant Seocho-gu; KRW 810,250 for the defendant's first-order dividend amount; KRW 5,348,210 for the defendant's Republic of Korea; KRW 5,348,210 for the third-order dividend amount to the defendant's Seocho-gu; KRW 168,307,550 for the defendant's Republic of Korea; KRW 17,198,030 for the defendant's Republic of Korea; KRW 107,748,413 for the defendant's Cho F; KRW 600,00 for the plaintiff; KRW 84,874,86 for the defendant's Republic of Korea; and

1. Basic facts

A. Since July 16, 1999, KimB completed the registration of creation of mortgage over the above apartment with the maximum debt amount of KRW 600,000,000 on March 31, 2006, while holding No. 000 of the OOdong 00,000,000,000 as the debtor and the Industrial Bank of Korea as the mortgagee.

B. On October 16, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer for the above apartment was made under the name of theCC apartment reconstruction housing association on October 10, 2006. On January 23, 2007, upon the application of the Industrial Bank of Korea, which is the person holding the right to collateral security, the registration of ownership transfer for the above apartment was commenced. On January 23, 2007, the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter referred to as the "voluntary auction procedure of this case").

C. During the process of the instant voluntary auction, the above apartment was reconstructed under the title of Seocho-gu Seoul OOdong No. 000-0 of Seocho-gu, Seoul, SODD No. 000 on June 1, 2010, and the registration of preservation of ownership was made under the name of KimB on June 1, 2010, and the correction was decided on the subject matter of sale in the said voluntary auction procedure. In the process, the Plaintiff was transferred the secured claim of the above right to collateral and the right to collateral security from the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”).

D. The type of demand for distribution determined in the instant voluntary auction procedure was July 23, 2010. The current status of the Defendants’ request for delivery and demand for distribution, etc. during the said voluntary auction procedure is as follows.

1) On July 14, 2010, prior to the end of the period for demand for distribution, the Defendant Seocho-gu submitted a written request to the auction court for the delivery of the delinquent taxpayer to theCC apartment reconstruction association. On October 4, 2010, after the end of the period for demand for distribution, the Defendant seized the instant real estate on October 4, 201, and again submitted a written request to the auction court for the delivery of the delinquent taxpayer KimB caused on August 16, 201, and requested to substitute the written request to the delivery authority as of July 14, 2010, which was submitted earlier.

2) In the case of Defendant Republic of Korea, on June 2, 201, after the end of the period for demand for distribution, the director of the Seocho District Tax Office under his control requested an auction court on June 2, 201. On September 7, 2010, after the end of the period for demand for distribution, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea attached the instant real estate on September 7, 201, which was after the end of the period for demand for distribution.

3) On August 31, 2010, after the end of the period for demanding the distribution, Defendant Jae-si requested an auction court to deliver the instant real estate to the auction court on August 22, 201, after having seized the instant real estate, and on the instant real estate on July 12, 2010, Defendant ChoF, who was established the right to collateral security on July 12, 2010, made a demand for distribution to the auction court on April 29, 2011, which was after the end of the period for demanding the distribution.

E. Meanwhile, on July 13, 201, when the instant voluntary auction procedure was in progress, the ownership transfer registration was made on July 7, 201 in order to supply and sell the instant real estate, and thereafter the decision to permit the sale of NaE on July 14, 201, which was the date of the decision to sell the said voluntary auction procedure, was made, and on August 3, 201, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of NaE on August 5, 201 as NaE completely pays the sales price.

F. Since then, in the distribution procedure of the above proceeds of sale (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution procedure of this case"), the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content of each distribution to the plaintiff and the defendants as stated below (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule of this case"), which is the amount of KRW 904,809,943, which is to be actually distributed after deducting the execution expenses from the sale price, etc. on September 1, 201, which is the date of distribution, from the actual distribution.

G. Accordingly, on September 1, 201, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and stated an objection against the Defendants’ respective dividend amounts, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on September 7, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul's evidence 1 to 3 (if any, including each number) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendants filed a demand for distribution and a request for delivery only after the completion period for demand for distribution, even though they are creditors entitled to receive a demand for distribution or a request for delivery until the completion period for demand for distribution in the instant voluntary auction procedure. Therefore, the Defendants did not have a legitimate right to receive a distribution in the instant distribution procedure. Therefore, the instant distribution schedule, the content of which is to distribute money to the Defendants, is unreasonable.

B. The defendants' assertion

1) Defendant Seocho-gu

On July 14, 2010, prior to the completion period for demand for distribution, the defendant Seocho-gu filed a request for delivery to the auction court by combining the delinquent taxpayer with theCC apartment reconstruction tank. The defendant's request that the delinquent taxpayer was filed on August 16, 201, after the completion period for demand for distribution by KimB was reconstructed on August 16, 201, which was after the completion period for demand for distribution, is merely a determination or supplement of the existing request for delivery made prior to the completion period for demand for distribution, and as such, the above request for delivery made on July 14, 2010, the defendant Seocho-gu has a legitimate right to receive dividends in the distribution procedure of this case.

2) Defendant South Korea

In the auction procedure, a request for the delivery of national taxes, etc. is made only before the date of the decision of sale, and the defendant Republic of Korea made a request for the delivery to the auction court on July 14, 201, which is the date of the decision of sale of the auction procedure of this case, on July 14, 201, and June 2, 2011, which is the date of the decision of sale. Thus, the defendant Republic of Korea has the legitimate right to receive dividends in

3) Defendant Pju-si, Defendant FF

Since YG, a third party after the registration of the decision to commence voluntary auction, acquired the ownership of the pertinent real estate, the remaining surplus accrued from the proceeds from the sale of the said real estate to be appropriated for the maximum debt amount among the Plaintiff’s secured claims, which are the right to collateral security, shall be distributed to YG, the third party acquisitor. Therefore, there is no legitimate right to receive dividends for the portion exceeding the maximum debt amount of the said secured debt, which was distributed to the instant dividends procedure. However, Defendant PY and Defendant FF had already been seized or established by YG prior to acquiring the ownership of the instant real estate prior to the acquisition of the ownership of the instant real estate, the said right to receive dividends in the

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution filed by a creditor, the plaintiff must assert and prove the cause of attribution of the amount of distribution as the cause of the claim, including the existence of the distribution schedule as the cause of the claim, and the fact that the amount of distribution, in addition to the fact of an application for objection to the distribution, reverts to himself/herself. Meanwhile, the third acquisitor who acquired the ownership regarding the real estate on which the right to collateral security was established may claim extinguishment of the right to collateral security, if only the amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount within the scope of the secured claim under Article 364 of the Civil Act, is reimbursed within the scope of the secured claim. Thus, in cases where a third acquisitor exists, the mortgagee cannot be reimbursed the amount exceeding the maximum debt amount from the proceeds of the sale, and therefore, if any, if there is a balance, the remaining amount shall be returned to the third acquisitor (owner) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 71Ma

B. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security at the Industrial Bank of Korea established by KimB with respect to the instant real estate and received 600,000,000 won equivalent to the maximum debt amount out of the secured debt of the relevant right to collateral security during the instant voluntary auction procedure, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said real estate due to purchase and sale during the said voluntary auction procedure after the establishment of the right to collateral security by the said small and medium enterprise venture bank after the establishment of the said right to collateral security, as seen earlier. As such, in the instant distribution procedure, the remainder remaining after distributing the amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the said right to collateral security to the Plaintiff out of the proceeds from the sale of the instant distribution procedure to the Plaintiff shall be returned to Jung who is the third purchaser, unless there are special circumstances, regardless of whether the Defendants had the right to receive dividends in the said distribution procedure, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends against the portion exceeding the maximum debt amount already apportioned to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s remaining assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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