1. A distribution schedule prepared on May 3, 2018 by this Court with respect to a compulsory auction of real estate C in Changwon District Court Msan-gu Seoul District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff with the Changwon District Court Order 98Gaso108, which decided on April 24, 1998 that "the plaintiff shall pay D 12,00,000 won and 25% interest per annum from April 16, 1998 to the date of full payment" and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On the other hand, upon the death of D, the Defendant (the heir), E, and F (child) who is the heir of the network D (hereinafter “the deceased”) was granted the succeeding execution clause to the above judgment on February 28, 2008 by the above court.

B. On January 4, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the creation of a collateral security right (hereinafter “instant collateral security right”) with regard to the land on two lots of land (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) located in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and 16,300,000 won with the maximum debt amount set forth in the said judgment as the secured debt.

C. On July 25, 2017, with respect to each of the instant lands, the procedure for the compulsory auction of real estate C with the Changwon District Court Msan Branch C (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). D.

On May 3, 2018, among the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution of the auction procedure in this case, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the remainder of KRW 14,721,616 to the Defendant as the first-class mortgagee, among the amount of KRW 34,721,616 to be actually distributed, KRW 20,00 as the second-class mortgagee, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends of the Defendant on the date of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured obligation of the instant mortgage was extinguished by the lapse of the ten-year extinctive prescription period, the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage is null and void as it is inconsistent with the substantive relationship.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant was a legitimate mortgagee, at the auction procedure of this case 14,721.