1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 28, 2004, the Daejeon District Court received the Daejeon District Court Decision No. 14788 on May 28, 2004 with respect to the registration of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”) with respect to the Daejeon-gu Daejeon District Court No. 201, 201, and 117,00,000 won. The said registration of establishment of a collateral security (right to collateral security (right to collateral security) was changed to the Defendant on August 13, 2010 on the ground that the said registration of establishment of a collateral security (right to collateral security) was transferred to the Defendant.

B. As to each of the instant real property on August 13, 2010, Daejeon District Court Decision 17733, the establishment registration of a collateral security holder, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 52,00,000, was completed.

(B) The collective security of each of the above paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be collectively referred to as "each of the instant collective security interests."

On September 19, 2012, the Defendant, each of the instant collateral security interests, received a voluntary decision to commence the auction on each of the instant real estates from Daejeon District Court B.

(hereinafter referred to as the "voluntary auction of this case"). 【The grounds for recognition】 Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant the sum total of KRW 8,210,60 (=2,582,500 won) of the interest on each of the secured claims in the instant case (i.e., KRW 5,628,100). As to the portion repaid as above, the auction of the instant case ought to be partially dismissed.

B. In addition, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff will not proceed with the voluntary auction of this case if only the interest on each of the secured claims of this case is repaid, and the defendant continued the voluntary auction procedure of this case even though the plaintiff fully repaid the overdue interest requested by the defendant. The auction of this case should be dismissed even in this regard.

3. The effect of a security interest in order to suspend or revoke an auction procedure to exercise a security interest in real estate.