1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 19, 201, the Defendant, from D on July 19, 201, was established with respect to the establishment registration of the first class neighboring to the 3,402 square meters of land in Kimhae-si (current land for factory). On September 8, 201, the Defendant was registered with respect to the establishment registration of the establishment of the first class neighboring to the 107/981 square meters of F road (hereinafter collectively, the front line forest and forest and the land in this case collectively referred to as “the instant land”).

B. Since then, the Plaintiff installed steel structure by carrying out steel structure construction for factory construction on the above E forest land E, 3,402 square meters and F part of land.

C. On the other hand, on May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff was created the right to collateral security, which is the debtor H and the plaintiff of the right to collateral security, with the land of this case as the joint collateral.

Since then, as D failed to perform the Defendant's collateral security obligation, the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land was commenced on August 19, 2013 according to the Defendant's application for auction.

E. As a result of the appraisal of the instant land and the instant steel structure whose construction was suspended in the process of voluntary auction [C], the said value was assessed as KRW 1,442,353,000 in total (i.e., KRW 1,305,301,000 in the instant land) (i., KRW 137,05,052,00 in the instant steel structure).

F. The instant land and the steel structure were sold at KRW 855,60,000 on November 27, 2014, and the executing court, on December 26, 2014, proposed a distribution schedule to the interested parties, wherein the amount of KRW 846,898,864, which was to be actually distributed to wage creditors on the date of distribution, was “ KRW 78,993,230 on the date of distribution, KRW 4,246 on the ground that “The wage creditors, KRW 78,93,230 on the date of distribution, KRW 4,246 on the ground that the person who was the mortgagee, was the mortgagee, KRW 76,521,464 on the Defendant who was the mortgagee, and KRW 379,924 on the Kim Sea, the person who

G. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was present at the date of the above distribution as the mortgagee and the lien reporter, and raised an objection against the Defendant regarding KRW 85,007,286 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant, and thereafter, raised an objection against the distribution.