1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 7, 2015, the Defendant, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, filed an application with the Plaintiff, and on August 7, 2015, the decision to commence the auction sale of real estate (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) with respect to the land for Pyeongtaek-si C, 435 square meters and D farm site (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 25, 2017, a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 143,472,567 to the Defendant on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure.

C. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Eul-7 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. On February 26, 2014, the gist of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim: (a) the Plaintiff contracted the Newly constructed construction work of KRW 830,00,000 for the payment of the construction work of KRW 830,000 for the Newly constructed construction work; and (b) on March 6, 2014, the Defendant awarded a subcontract to the Defendant for the 232,100,000 won for the subcontracted construction work (including additional tax). On the same day, the Plaintiff drafted and provided a direct written consent to the Defendant on the same day.

Although the Defendant failed to complete the steel framed by June 30, 2014, which was within the deadline for construction, the Plaintiff established a right to collateral security on the instant land on July 30, 2014 to promptly complete the steel framed, and on October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 196,570,00 (including additional tax) by November 20, 2014.

was drawn up and issued.

However, the defendant did not present any evidentiary materials at the time of the preparation of the agreement of this case, and the plaintiff was bound to sign the agreement because the defendant is likely to enforce the right to collateral security.

The unit price of the material was set at a higher level in the estimates of the subcontract that the Defendant entered into, and the amount of the material was written mistakenly, and the Defendant did not entirely engage in the eroplate, CON's CSTPPPPPPPPS, and the Plaintiff was Nonparty 1.