1. A distribution schedule prepared on February 2, 2017 by the above court with respect to a compulsory auction case of immovables D in the Jeonju District Court and Eup.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a trustee in bankruptcy who was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court on July 18, 2016.

(Court 2016Han2837). (b)

A around April 27, 1996, around 1996, borrowed KRW 5 million from the Defendant to the Defendant, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 8 million to the Defendant with respect to Go Chang Chang-gun, Young-gun, F, and G (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

C. On February 4, 2016, the real estate auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) began on February 4, 2016 with respect to each of the instant lands D with the Jeonju District Court’s branch branch branch D. D.

On February 2, 2017, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule of KRW 8 million as a first-class mortgagee to the defendant among the amount to be distributed actually on the date of distribution of the auction procedure in this case, and KRW 18,365,934 to the plaintiff as a trustee in bankruptcy, and the plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends of the defendant on the date of distribution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured obligation of the instant mortgage was extinguished after the lapse of the ten-year extinctive prescription, and thus, the said establishment registration is null and void as it is inconsistent with the substantive relationship.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as if he was a legitimate mortgagee, received 8 million won in the instant auction procedure as if he was a legitimate mortgagee, so the said distribution schedule should be revised.

B. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security occurred on April 27, 1996 and that the due date has been fixed, it is apparent that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has already elapsed from the date of establishment of the instant secured right as of February 4, 2016, which was the starting date of the auction procedure. Thus, the secured claim of the instant secured right of collateral security has already expired.

Therefore, this case.