1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On the date of distribution on December 18, 2018, 11,792,688 won out of the remainder 180,246,738 won, excluding the execution cost, out of the proceeds from the sale of the said real estate on the date of distribution on the date of distribution as of December 18, 2018, the Daegu District Court rendered a distribution to E, a pledge holder of the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security against the right to collateral security, which was KRW 24,70,000, and 168,00,00 won was set up as a distribution schedule distributed to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee, as the right to collateral security.

B. The plaintiff was present on the date of distribution and did not raise an objection.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The plaintiff's determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case asserts that the defendant's distribution of 12,907,312 won out of 24,70,000 won, which is equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the plaintiff's right to collateral security, cannot be distributed to E, a corporation which is the pledgee of the right to collateral security against the plaintiff, which is the right to collateral security against the plaintiff, by receiving a report on the claim containing 3,954,194 won, which is not the secured debt of the right to collateral security, should be corrected to KRW 148,731,733 won, and the dividend amount of 11,792,68 won against E, which is 24,700,000 won.

Before determining the merits, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Even if a creditor submitted a prior written objection to the court of execution because an objection against the distribution schedule can only be raised by oral statement and the written objection is not permissible, even if the creditor failed to appear on the date of distribution or appeared in the court of execution, if the objection was not made a statement on the date of distribution, the objection may not be raised (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da1846, Jan. 27, 1981). The distribution against the defendant is unlawful.

Even if so, if the amount to be distributed to the plaintiff is not increased, this reason is an increase in the amount of dividend.