1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C obtained a loan of KRW 700,000,000 from the Defendant on May 18, 2012, and as security, C set up a collateral on D and eight parcels (hereinafter “E-dong nine parcels”).

B. However, as C was unable to set up a mortgage on the nine Edong parcels even though the Defendant gave out a loan, C had set up a mortgage on the Plaintiff and C’s other real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, and the auction was conducted on the Plaintiff and C’s other real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant submitted a claim statement, including interest claim, and prepared a distribution schedule that receives dividends of the principal amount of KRW 270,626,743 and interest KRW 155,393,100, total amount of KRW 426,019,843.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. When the Defendant’s registration of creation of collateral security was unable to obtain the establishment of collateral security No. 1 on the nine parcels of E, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to pressure the Plaintiff’s side and set up additional collateral, thereby setting up the collateral security on the instant real estate.

This is illegal as an act of unfairly demanding a borrower, etc., who violates Article 52-2 (1) 2 of the Banking Act to provide a collateral. Therefore, the defendant's collateral established on the real estate of this case

Therefore, even if the principal portion of the amount distributed to the defendant is the principal portion, the interest portion should not be distributed.

On the other hand, it is not sufficient to recognize only the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the testimony of witness F, G, and H as to the fact that the defendant unfairly demanded the security, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s exemption from interest has agreed to exempt the Plaintiff’s side and interest on the early 2014, and thus, the interest portion should not be distributed.