All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the illegality of additional dividends

A. In a case where the judgment revoking the right to collateral security contract by fraudulent act became final and conclusive first and the lawsuit of demurrer against the mortgagee is followed, in a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, the amount of dividends against the mortgagee should be deleted to the extent that the creditor’s claims filed the lawsuit have not been satisfied without considering the existence of other creditors who did not file the lawsuit, and the remaining amount should be corrected as the amount of dividends against the mortgagee, and the amount should be left as the amount of dividends against the mortgagee.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da3818 delivered on May 22, 1998, etc.). However, in the above case, inasmuch as the contract establishing a right to collateral was revoked by fraudulent act, as long as such contract establishing a right to collateral security has been revoked by fraudulent act, it shall be deemed that there is an obvious reason that the mortgagee lose the right to receive dividends based on the right to collateral security and could not implement dividends to him/her. As such, Article 161 of the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the auction court, by analogying Article 161 of the Civil Execution Act, the part remaining

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da37613 Decided October 12, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da33069 Decided September 24, 2002, etc.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that Q’s maximum debt amount regarding the instant housing exceeds KRW 258,545,739, out of the mortgage agreement that causes 800,000,000, and that S’s maximum debt amount exceeds KRW 300,000,00, and revoked the portion of the mortgage agreement that causes 96,954,652, out of the mortgage agreement that causes 300,000, as a fraudulent act; and (2) in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution that is proceeding later, the amount of dividends was revised only to the extent of KRW 632,84,244, limited to the amount of the principal and interest of the claim of K, etc. acquired by the Defendant C, who filed the lawsuit of demurrer,