1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the language of the second and fourth parts of the judgment of the court of the first instance as “concept”; and (b) the same is as the written judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the additional determination as stipulated in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the establishment registration of the defendant's neighboring mortgage was completed after the provisional attachment registration of the plaintiff with respect to the real estate of this case, the court of auction shall distribute 100% of the amount of the claim to the defendant and distribute the amount of the claim to the plaintiff only 5.78% of the amount of the claim to the plaintiff, the above distribution schedule is unreasonable.

In the case where the registration of provisional seizure was made first and the registration of provisional seizure was completed, in the distribution relationship between the creditor of provisional seizure, the creditor of provisional seizure, and the creditor of provisional seizure whose registration of provisional seizure was completed after the registration of provisional seizure was completed after the registration of provisional seizure was completed after the registration of establishment of a new mortgage, or the lessee who meets the requirements for preferential payment right after the registration of establishment of a new mortgage, the mortgagee of senior provisional seizure cannot claim preferential payment right against the creditor of senior provisional seizure. Thus, the creditor of senior provisional seizure has received equal payment right in proportion to the amount of the first provisional seizure claim, and the creditor

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 94Ma417, Nov. 29, 1994). In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the Health Team, No. 1-1, and No. 4-1 and No. 2 as to the instant case, a court of execution shall make equal dividends to the Defendant, who is a senior provisional attachment creditor and a creditor requesting auction, in proportion to the amount of a single-lane claim, according to the aforementioned legal principles.