1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), and the statement in Gap evidence No. 6 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

On August 24, 2005, the Defendant entered into a contract to establish a collateral (hereinafter “mortgage”) with respect to a building (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”) owned by B, Gyeongbuk-do C, 251 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “the instant real property”) with respect to the establishment of a collateral (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 420 million, B, and Defendant of the debtor, B, and Defendant of the mortgagee, and completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the Daegu District Court No. 4663 on the following day.

B. Meanwhile, around December 28, 2006, the Defendant entered into a credit loan agreement between B and B on the grounds that the loan for self-reliance on the subject of loan, transaction classification, transaction limit, and loan limit of 10 million won, and entered into an additional agreement on July 26, 201, changing the credit loan limit of KRW 30 million.

(hereinafter “the instant credit loan”). C.

The Plaintiff, the mortgagee of each of the instant real estate, filed an application for voluntary auction with the Daegu District Court Young-gu District Court (A). On October 22, 2014, the said court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on each of the instant real estate. D.

In allocating the amount of KRW 566,152,460 to be actually distributed to the Defendant, a third-class mortgagee, who was the first-class collective security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) on the date of distribution implemented on March 25, 2015, the said auction court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 119,108,233 to the Plaintiff, a third-class collective security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s credit loan of this case is not included in the secured debt of the instant mortgage.

Therefore, the part that distributes the principal and interest of the credit loan of this case to the defendant among the distribution schedule of this case is unreasonable.

B. The key issue of the instant case is the determination.