1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The Plaintiffs, as the subject of the instant judgment, sought correction of the instant distribution schedule against the Defendant and C on the grounds of the lapse of the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation.

The first instance court dismissed all the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendant and C, and accepted the conjunctive claims, which only the defendant appealed, so this court's trial scope is limited to the conjunctive claims against the defendant.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the reasoning and addition of “3. additional determination” as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The “Defendant C” shall both refer to “Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial,” and the 3rd 12 line was “E appealed, but dismissed on April 8, 2005 (Seoul District Court Decision 2004Na12002).” The above judgment was finalized on May 7, 2005.” Following the addition of the 4th 1 line to “(Susansansan Branch Support G of the Daejeon District Court”)”, both the 2 lines and 62 lines were “certification.”

3. Additional determination

A. On August 30, 2017, the Defendant’s assertion E renounced the prescriptive benefit by giving the Defendant a written third letter of the instant case to the Defendant. ② On March 22, 2018, the date of distributing the auction procedure for the sale of real estate M M to Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch M to the Daejeon District Court, the Defendant’s assertion renounced the prescriptive benefit once by failing to raise an objection to the Defendant’s distribution.

① The waiver of the prescriptive profit on August 30, 2017 and the waiver of the prescriptive profit on March 22, 2018, pursuant to the instant letter of claim 3, are separate declarations of intent. The Plaintiff exercised the right to revoke only the waiver of the prescriptive profit on August 30, 2017. As such, the waiver of the prescriptive profit on March 22, 2018 still remains valid.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

B. Determination 1) On July 11, 2017, the procedure for the auction of real estate M&D in the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch was commenced on July 11, 2017 (B7-2, and thereafter August 30, 2017).