1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 200, Nonparty B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party B”) entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, setting the scope of secured debt as a comprehensive collateral, setting the maximum debt amount at KRW 31.2 million, in order to secure the Defendant’s debt to the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank. On January 12, 2001, Nonparty B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party”) entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, setting the scope of secured debt as a comprehensive collateral, and completed the registration of establishment of a collateral in the Defendant’s future regarding the real estate stated in the claim

Accordingly, on the same day, the Nonparty borrowed KRW 24 million from the Defendant as the name of the Housing Purchase Fund (Goods Code): C).

B. After that, on October 15, 2004, the Nonparty sold the said real estate to the Plaintiff, and on December 4, 2004, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the said sale in the future of the Plaintiff.

On October 5, 201, the Plaintiff, as a third acquisitor, subrogated to the Defendant for KRW 15 million out of the Nonparty’s debt.

When based on the language and text of the application for subrogation (Evidence A5) and the statement of the party on the date of pleading, etc., the term "related person" among the meriation stated in the application for subrogation refers to the non-party, and the subject of the phrase, "to reimburse the principal and interest of KRW 10,000 (D loans) out of the amount of full payment shall be repaid first," appears to mean the obligation of loans under the above paragraph.

Accordingly, 11,098,344 out of the payment by subrogation (the principal KRW 10,00,000 as interest of KRW 1,098,344) was first appropriated for the payment by subrogation, and the remaining KRW 3,901,656 was appropriated for the payment by subrogation.

C. On November 2015, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction (this court E) based on the above right to collateral security with respect to the above real estate.

Therefore, while the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to withdraw an auction, the Defendant rejected the said request on the grounds that other debts (KBS Customer Internet Non-document Loans on December 29, 2000) exist concurrently, in addition to the above household loan obligations against the Nonparty.

[Ground of Recognition: Evidence A. 5, Evidence B. 1 to 3, respectively (part of No. . . 3).