1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on May 22, 2014 with respect to the case of compulsory auction against B real estate in this Court, the defendant is the defendant.

1. The Plaintiff, based on the premise, filed a suit for loan claim with the Jeonju District Court 2004Gau45275 against C, and the decision of performance recommendation that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 8,822,121 won and 7,880,000 won with the rate of 25% per annum from September 21, 2004 to the day of full payment,” which became final and conclusive around that time.

The Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate as B with the same court on November 21, 2013 with respect to the 251m2 and 51.4m2 of the above ground-based cement block structure (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the date of distribution on May 22, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 15,000 as a mortgagee, and the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 1,513,07 as an applicant creditor, respectively.

On the other hand, on April 14, 2003, C concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “mortgage contract of this case”) with respect to the instant real estate. On the same day, C concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant on the same day, C completed the registration of creation of a mortgage near the maximum debt amount of 15,000,000 (hereinafter “the registration of creation of a mortgage near the instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although there is no loan claim against the Defendant C, which is the secured debt of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the Plaintiff’s assertion, C concluded a mortgage contract by means of false conspiracy with the Defendant, so the mortgage contract in this case is null and void, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the instant case is invalid.

Preliminaryly, even if the Defendant’s loan claim against C exists, the above loan claim expired after the lapse of 10 years from April 14, 2003.

Therefore, the defendant is not a mortgagee on the real estate of this case, and the plaintiff's dividend amount against the defendant upon the claim of this case.