1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts constituting the premise of the dispute

A. Defendant B is the child of E, the Plaintiff’s wife D, and the Plaintiff and D are currently in a divorce lawsuit.

(Cheongju District Court 2014ddan1496).b.

E and Defendant B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on March 7, 2013, on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff on March 7, 2013, for establishing a contract as of March 5, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of the instant collateral security”).

E and Defendant B filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Chungcheong District Court Cheongju Branch C, and in the above auction auction case, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule including the distribution of KRW 84,172,023 to the Defendant Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund and the Defendant B, each of whom is the mortgagee E and the mortgagee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 3 types of evidence (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the Plaintiff’s assertion is null and void since, although the Plaintiff did not borrow any money from Defendant B or E, Defendant B, E, and D had the Plaintiff induced and completed the registration, the amount of dividends to the Defendants should be distributed to the Plaintiff, the owner of which is the Plaintiff.

3. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff does not assert or prove the facts constituting the grounds for the objection against distribution, and the creditor who has filed an objection against distribution by asserting that the other party's claim is disguised, shall bear the burden of proof therefor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178 delivered on November 14, 1997). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case.

Rather, in full view of the entries and the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff confirmed that the plaintiff borrowed the above amount (see the passbook details) until December 30, 201. The plaintiff is entitled to statutory interest at the time of repayment with the land and the money as the repayment condition.