1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of 1/2 share out of B, B, 639 square meters, and the Defendant is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of which is 100,000,000.

그런데, 위 토지가 수용되었고, 피고는 위 수용에 따른 손실보상금에 대하여 물상대위권을 행사하여 청구금액윽 100,000,000원으로 하여 이 법원 2013타채16146 물상대위권에 의한 채권압류 및 추심명령 결정을 받았는데, 피고의 원고에 대한 채무액은 실제로 41,350,075원이다.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a lawsuit of objection to the instant claim, seeks the denial of compulsory execution and the suspension of compulsory execution on the part exceeding KRW 41,350,075 of the Plaintiff’s debt amount based on the determination of the above seizure and collection order.

2. A lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of executive force held by executive titles by asserting that the obligor’s claim under private law, which is the content of executive titles, does not coincide with the present substantive state.

However, in this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection against the seizure and collection order as the exercise of the right based on subrogation. The plaintiff's seizure and collection order as the exercise of the right based on subrogation is only the execution procedure of the security right, and it is difficult to view it as the execution title which is the object of the lawsuit of objection.

In addition, pursuant to Articles 227(4) and 229(6) of the Civil Execution Act with respect to the decision of seizure and collection order, the action of this case is unlawful, since it is only possible to submit to the executive agency a document of cancellation of execution before the execution is dissatisfied with or completing the act of execution through an immediate appeal to the enforcement agency, and it is not possible to seek revocation of the execution separately from this court, which is the litigation agency.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful.