1. With respect to the cases of military delivery support B and C (Dual) of the Jeonju District Court, the above court shall have jurisdiction over the compulsory auction of real estate on December 17, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor against D, and the Defendant, on the ground of the existence of a claim against D, completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000 with respect to the second floor (a collective building; hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) of the 205th floor of the 2nd floor of the Donsan-si, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”).

B. Upon the Plaintiff’s application, F, a wife of D (the Defendant also filed an application for the commencement of voluntary auction on the instant real estate) was awarded a successful bid on the instant real estate by the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch B, C (Dupl).

C. On December 17, 2015, the Jeonju District Court: (a) drafted a distribution schedule regarding a compulsory auction case for the above real estate on the same date; and (b) distributed KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee (the reported amount of claims KRW 59,682,191); and (c) KRW 1,203,434 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor, as the applicant creditor (the reported amount of claims KRW 47,36,807).

The plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution and stated that he has an objection to the total amount of 30,000,000 won of the defendant's dividend amount.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 9-2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s claim against D is the most recent claim, and even if it is not so, the distribution of dividends against the Defendant is unfair, and the dividends paid to the Defendant should be distributed to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s claim against D is the actual claim against the Defendant, and the extinctive prescription is interrupted by recognizing the Defendant’s claim by stating that prior to the instant case, D would discharge its obligation to the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The facts and evidence mentioned earlier are as follows. A’s evidence No. 10-1 to 5, and A’s evidence.