2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff and the successor.

A. With respect to Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Apartment 1209 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D on October 22, 2014 against D, and was sentenced to a judgment accepting the claim for principal (2014Gahap35377), except for partial damages for delay, from the Seoul Central District Court. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant issued a provisional seizure by this Court No. 2014Kadan70769 on October 27, 2014, and on November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction to this Court C for a compulsory auction on November 12, 2014 (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

B. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant made a demand for distribution as a person holding a provisional seizure, and on September 9, 2015, the executing court prepared a distribution schedule to the Defendant, in the first order, to distribute KRW 6,735,729, and KRW 144,980,349, and KRW 97,285,670 to the Plaintiff, in the second order, to the National Bank of Korea, in which the actual amount to be distributed after deducting the execution cost, out of the proceeds of sale of the instant real estate on the date of distribution.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on September 11, 2015, within seven days thereafter.

On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred to the succeeding intervenor a dividend receipt claim (hereinafter “instant dividend receipt claim”) including a case where the distribution schedule is changed as a result of the distribution, and notified the fact of the assignment of the claim by content-certified mail in the Republic of Korea on January 29, 2016, and served a notice of the assignment of claim in the Republic of Korea at that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 10-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the assertion by the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor

A. Although the defendant's claim against D is a false claim, the above distribution schedule should be revised on the premise that it is a valid claim, as it was erroneously distributed to the defendant in the future.

B. The plaintiff, the successor, and the successor.