1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2012, the Plaintiff is a Switzerland corporation that entered into a ship management agreement with F company (F), the owner of E (E; hereinafter “instant vessel”). The Defendant is the Switzerland bank that completed the registration of the establishment of the first place of the instant vessel with respect to the instant vessel.

B. The Defendant, based on the right to collateral security, filed an application for voluntary auction (Seoul District Court Seosan Branch C, D (Dupl) and the guard and preservation (the same court G G) with respect to the instant vessel, and the said court rendered a voluntary auction decision on January 3, 2019 on the instant vessel (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”).

H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) delegated by the Defendant and the Defendant

(3) The court below determined that the vessel owner may take over the vessel of this case and retain the vessel of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on the guard and preservation of this case”).

C) At the instant auction procedure, the execution court distributed dividends of KRW 71,187,921,05 to the Defendant, who is the creditor applying for the right to collateral security interest, out of KRW 71,187,921,05, which was the date of distribution, after deducting the execution expenses from the actual dividend amount, from the proceeds of sale and interest on July 24, 2019, the date of distribution (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

D) The Plaintiff made an objection to KRW 389,314,958 out of the amount of dividends against the Defendant on the date of distribution (i.e., USD 329,872.02 x USD 1,180.20 per US dollars 16 July 16, 2019), and filed the instant lawsuit on July 29, 2019, within seven days thereafter. [Judgment of the court below] The Plaintiff raised an objection to the amount of dividends against the Defendant, namely, USD 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff alleged that he had been conducting the management work of the ship of this case since it had been previously decided to preserve the guard of this case. He did not perform the management work of the ship of this case as a guard and preservation company after the guard and preservation decision of this case. Thus, the plaintiff continued to perform the management work of this case inevitably.