1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In the auction procedure of the real estate auction case B by the Incheon District Court regarding No. 301, the third floor of the 3rd floor of the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which is owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendants, the person holding the provisional attachment, filed a report on the rights

B. On August 21, 2015, the court of execution prepared and presented a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 5,129,33 won to Defendant Da case Loan Co., Ltd., the Defendant Incheon Credit Guarantee Foundation, KRW 13,567,671 to the Defendant Incheon Credit Guarantee Foundation, and KRW 0 to the Plaintiff who is the debtor and the owner, the Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendants.

C. On April 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Incheon District Court 2014 Incheon District Court 128056, and received a decision to authorize the repayment plan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is entitled to authorize the repayment plan. Therefore, the defendants' provisional attachment should lose its validity and change the amount of dividends to 0 won, thereby revising the distribution schedule of this case.

B. Determination 1) Upon receipt of an order to commence individual rehabilitation procedures, compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition against property belonging to the individual rehabilitation foundation on the basis of individual rehabilitation claims listed in the list of creditors (Article 600(1)2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act) shall be suspended or prohibited (Article 600(1)2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and when a decision to authorize the repayment plan is made, compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition based on individual rehabilitation claims suspended pursuant to Article 600 shall lose its effect: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where it is otherwise prescribed in the decision to authorize the repayment plan or the repayment plan (Article 615(3)2 of the same Act). In this case, the fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation and received a decision to authorize the repayment plan on April 14, 2016 is as seen earlier.