1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2010, the Plaintiff had a loan claim against E, the owner of 101-dong 1106 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On January 29, 2010, the instant real estate was provisionally seized with a loan claim claim.

B. On September 16, 2009, the Defendant concluded a contract to establish a mortgage which causes the mortgagee’s right to the instant real estate, the maximum debt amount of 55,00,000,00 with E, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the registration of establishment of a mortgage”) under the former District Court No. 22928, Sept. 16, 2009.

C. On February 2, 2017, when the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate was initiated as B in the Jeonju District Court’s branch branch, the distribution schedule was prepared on February 2, 2017, and the said distribution schedule stated that the Defendant received KRW 55,00,000 as a dividend.

The plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of dividends of the defendant at the time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s establishment registration of the establishment of a neighboring mutual savings bank of this case was immediately conducted by the Financial Services Commission on August 11, 2009, which was the obligee E at the time of the Plaintiff’s claim, after being subject to the decision of an insolvent financial institution and measures for improvement of management. E constitutes a false declaration of intention in collusion with the Defendant having a close-friendly relationship, even though the Defendant did not have any obligation to evade compulsory execution of the instant real estate.

B. According to the evidence No. 3, the judgment on the assertion of false conspiracy of agreement 1) The fact that the excellent mutual savings bank, E, was subject to the Financial Services Commission's order of decision and management improvement around August 11, 2009, and the plaintiff was transferred the contractual status of the excellent mutual savings bank. 2) Meanwhile, the following facts are discussed in the statement No. 1, 2, and 3.