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. Basic facts

A. On the ground of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul District Court C real estate auction procedure was initiated on September 25, 2013 upon the application of the above session Saemaul Fund.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). B.

On December 5, 2013, the execution court determined the completion period to demand a distribution as of December 5, 2013, and sent a lessee notice to F, which is the husband and the householder of the Plaintiff, and the F directly received on October 14, 2013.

C. However, on January 9, 2014, the completion period for the demand for distribution, which was passed by December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the executing court for the extension of the completion period for the demand for distribution, and filed a report on the right regarding KRW 36 million as a lessee and the demand for distribution. D.

On August 21, 2014, on the date of distribution, the execution court distributed to the Defendant KRW 64,528,636 (i.e., the lessee with the fixed date of KRW 32 million who is the lessee of small amount of money, and KRW 32,528,636), and to G KRW 25 million (i.e., the lessee with the fixed date of KRW 12 million who is the lessee of small amount of money, with the fixed date of KRW 12 million), and prepared a distribution schedule that excludes the Plaintiff from the distribution procedure.

E. F obtained permission on the above date of distribution as the Plaintiff’s agent, and raised an objection against KRW 20,94,390 out of the dividend amount distributed to Defendant of the above distribution schedule, and KRW 11,005,610 out of G’s dividend amount.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case seeking correction of the judgment on the present safety defense, the defendant did not have standing to sue against the plaintiff, and thus, we look at this point.

Creditors with an executory exemplification, creditors who have effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision to commence the auction, and creditors who have the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act and other Acts, shall only apply to the case where a demand for distribution has been made not later than