1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. Yongcheon-si, C Apartment No. 101, 807, Dong 807 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff.

B. On February 9, 2004, on the instant real estate, the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the attached Table No. 1 as the debtor and the co-defendant B as the co-defendant B of the first instance court (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate”) was completed.

C. On November 14, 2012, B filed an application for a real estate auction to exercise the security right with the Daegu District Court D upon the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring land.

While the auction case was in progress, on March 4, 2013, when the date of sale was earlier, a request for postponement of the date of sale was made on the ground that B had a reason for being in consultation with the debtor, and accordingly the date of sale was postponed once.

However, the real estate in this case was sold at KRW 72,890,000 as the auction procedure was conducted thereafter.

E. On June 18, 2013, E of small tenants: (a) KRW 7,00,000 for small tenants; (b) KRW 35,00,000 for B; (c) the KNN card for the KNF Co., Ltd.; and (d) KRW 27,310,290 for Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.; and (b) the Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. received dividends of KRW 1,68,986; and (c) the said distribution schedule was finalized as it is without any objection.

F. B defaulted national taxes (137,589,830 won). Accordingly, the Defendant seized B’s right to claim a dividend payment, and on June 20, 2013, the Defendant collected the total amount of the dividend and appropriated it for the national taxes in arrears.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole facts and arguments in this court

2. The plaintiff alleged that B had registered the establishment of a mortgage over the instant neighboring area at the time of lending KRW 30,000,000 to B, but actually, the plaintiff lent only KRW 3,000,000 to B, and it returned to B the said amount of KRW 3,00,000,000.