1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Itel.

B. On July 13, 2005, J, the representative director of the Plaintiff, borrowed money from the Defendant, and on July 13, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage against the said Itel as the Defendant, with respect to the said Itel, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000, and the debtor J and the mortgagee

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to cancel the instant right of collateral on the ground that the secured obligation of the instant right of collateral was extinguished due to repayment (In Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gahap9801), and the first instance court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on June 24, 2014.

Therefore, although the plaintiff appealed on July 3, 2015, the court of the second instance declared that the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed (Seoul High Court 2014Na35374) and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 24, 2015.

(hereinafter “Related Cases”) D.

On November 10, 2017, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 112,839,530 to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee of the instant case, who is the mortgagee of the instant case, and the Plaintiff, who is the debtor and owner, was present on the date of distribution and raised an objection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The J, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s assertion, borrowed KRW 100 million from K, the Defendant’s husband, from February 14, 2007 to March 27, 2007, and repaid all principal and interest from August 10, 207.

Since the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security has all ceased to exist, the amount of dividends to the Defendant should be deleted.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In a case where the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s claim has not been constituted, the Defendant