1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The contents of the distribution schedule prepared by the court: The following table:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) in the instant case of an application for auction of real estate rent in C in this Court, which was conducted upon the application of the E-D0 Agricultural Cooperatives, this Court prepared a distribution schedule as follows: (a) the amount to be actually distributed on May 10, 2016 is KRW 754,738,768, and KRW 446,375,586, and KRW 365,869 as a collateral security holder (F equity) to the Defendant in the first order; and (b) the Defendant distributes the surplus to the Plaintiff as the owner, KRW 108,197,607, other G, H, I, and J, as the amount to be distributed to each owner on the said date of distribution; and (c) the Plaintiff was present on the said date of distribution and raised an objection to the entire amount of dividends to the Defendant.

2. The plaintiff's summary of argument: the defendant, who raised an objection to the distribution against the false mortgagee, set up a false collateral security without any claim against F which is the person who set up the right to collateral security

3. Determination: Not accepting the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s right to collateral security established with respect to F shares out of the instant land is a false claim that does not actually exist. Even if the Defendant’s right to collateral security is denied, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s dividend is the share to F that should return to the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff (as seen earlier, F did not have any surplus distributed), and it does not additionally distribute to the Plaintiff.