1. From among the distribution schedule prepared on October 13, 2016 by the Daejeon District Court with respect to the compulsory auction of real estate D.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 11, 1997, G filed a registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in order to secure a total of KRW 100 million ( KRW 35 million for Defendant and Selection Party E, and KRW 30 million for the Selection Party F) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. In the auction procedure of H real estate in Daejeon District Court on July 26, 2002, the Defendant and the Appointed E received each of the 14,398,692 won as the appropriation of the leased principal, which is the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, and the Appointed F received each of the 12,341,737 won.

(C) On October 13, 2016, the distribution schedule was prepared as follows: (a) in the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate D (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”); (b) the Defendant and the Appointed Party E, as the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”); and (c) the Appointed Party F, as the instant collateral security, received the dividends of KRW 29,926,288, respectively (hereinafter “second dividends”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who was present on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, raised an objection to the distribution against the Defendant and the designated parties, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on October 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant and the designated parties received the first and second dividends, and received the second dividends in excess of 100 million won of the maximum debt amount of the instant right to collateral security, namely, the Defendant and the designated parties received dividends in excess of the maximum debt amount of the first dividends, and thus, the Defendant and the designated parties should delete the excess dividends received from the second dividends and distribute them to the Plaintiff.

B. The mortgagee has the right to preferential reimbursement to the general creditors within the scope of the maximum amount of debt, but does not have the right to preferential reimbursement for the exceeding portion.