1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. As to the instant case, the reasoning of this court is as follows: “An application for auction of real estate rent was filed by the court of first instance,” No. 2, No. 2, 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance; “An application for auction of real estate rent (Seoul District Court Branch D; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was filed; and the part No. 3-B, other than the dismissal as follows, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Sheon portion "b."

(1) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had been aware that the decision to commence the auction procedure and the distribution procedure was in progress in the instant auction procedure, but did not raise any particular objection, and thus, the Defendant should be deemed to have waived the prescription benefit.

(2) In a case where the right to collateral security, the extinction of which has been completed by the relevant legal doctrine, was carried out, and the real estate owned by the debtor was knocked out, and the proceeds therefrom were distributed, and the debtor did not raise any objection until it was appropriated for partial repayment of the obligation, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, such as the debtor was unaware of the progress of the auction procedure, the debtor shall be deemed to have renounced the benefit of prescription by impliedly

(3) In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff, as an obligor, renounced the benefit of prescription by impliedly approving the obligation, with the knowledge of the completion of prescription, if it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff gave up the benefit of prescription, even though it was aware of the completion of prescription.

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified.

① On May 16, 2013, prior to the commencement of the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff filed for the Defendant, a second secured mortgage, with the Daegu District Court No. 2013Da2627, supra.