1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had a claim for acquisition money against C, who is the owner of the 1,700 square meters of the 1,700 square meters of the previous Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun (hereinafter “the instant real property”). On January 18, 2006, the Plaintiff provisionally attached the instant real property with the claim for the said acquisition money as the claim for the said acquisition money.

B. On May 23, 191, the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract with C, which causes the establishment of a mortgage right holder, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of 50,000,000 with respect to the instant real estate, and completed the establishment registration of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case”) by the Jeonju District Court No. 7726, Jun. 4, 191.

C. On March 16, 2017, a distribution schedule was prepared on March 16, 2017, following the commencement of the auction procedure for the real estate auction as to the real estate in this case by the Jeonju District Court A, Jeonju District Court A, and the Defendant stated that the distribution schedule was distributed KRW 19,751,81

The plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of dividends of the defendant at the time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim as to the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security was made on July 4, 1991 where one month has passed since the registration for the establishment of the instant right to collateral security was made, and the extinctive prescription was completed on July 4, 1994, and expired on July 4, 1994. Thus, the part that distributed to the Defendant according to the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security, which had already been extinguished by the extinctive prescription, is unlawful.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security was suspended by the final judgment or the recognition of debt.

3. In light of the judgment, the starting date of the extinctive prescription is the starting date of calculation of the extinctive prescription period which meets the requirements of the occurrence of the legal effect called the extinction of the obligation, and specific facts constituting the legal requirements of the extinctive prescription defense.