The distribution schedule prepared by the above court on June 10, 2020 with respect to the case of the compulsory auction of the real estate C in Youngcheon District Court Youngcheon District Court Young-gu C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 22, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) on the grounds of sale with respect to the cement cement 152 square meters and the 50.37 square meters of a single-story house on the land and its ground, Taecheon-si, Taecheon-si, 2008.

B. On June 17, 2014, E completed the registration of setting the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) of KRW 15,000,000 with respect to each of the instant real property.

C. On November 4, 2014, the Defendant, the mother of E, made a supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security on the ground of transfer of contract on October 28, 2014.

On June 10, 2020, the above court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 15,000,000 to the defendant, who is a mortgagee, to the second order on June 10, 2020.

E. The Plaintiff raised an objection to the amount distributed by the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. We examine whether the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security exists actually.

The burden of proving the grounds for objection to a distribution also complies with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in a case where the Plaintiff contests that the Defendant’s claim was not constituted, the Defendant is liable to prove the establishment of the claim or the facts of the cause thereof, and in a case where the Plaintiff claims that the claim was invalidated as a false declaration of agreement or extinguished by repayment, the Plaintiff is liable

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s health team, from June 16, 2014, KRW 10,000,000.