1. On June 17, 2015, with respect to the Daegu District Court Branch C, D, and E (Dual) auction of real estate, the above court shall have jurisdiction over the auction of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 2007, the Defendant completed on February 15, 2007, the establishment registration of a collateral security contract, the collateral security right holder, the Defendant, the obligor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 867,500,00 as the grounds for registration (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a collateral security right of this case”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list as of February 21, 207.

B. After that, at the request of F, etc., who is another mortgagee with regard to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the procedure for the voluntary auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction”) was conducted as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet by the Daegu District Court Branch C, D, and E (Dupl). On June 17, 2015, the said court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the Defendant would distribute KRW 363,168,17 to the Defendant on the date of distribution, and the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and stated that there was an objection against the Defendant’s dividend amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of violation of res judicata 1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant prior to the instant case, and the Daegu High Court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the content that the Defendant deleted the amount distributed to the Defendant. Accordingly, the preparation of the instant distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 363,168,17 to the Defendant is a decision contrary to res judicata effect of the said ruling of recommending reconciliation. 2) When the judgment on the merits of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution filed by the creditor of judgment became final and conclusive, the judgment on the existence of the right to receive substantive dividends as to the amount of dividends raised by the creditor of judgment becomes res judicata effect (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da3501, Jan. 21, 200). According to subparagraphs 3-1 and 2 of subparagraphs, the Daegu High Court has res judicata effect on the judgment on the existence of the right to receive substantive dividends as to the amount of dividends raised by the creditor of judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da967, Mar. 18, 201