A. On April 12, 2013, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) issued and delivered one promissory note with a face value of 400,000,000 and one promissory note payable at sight on the date of payment to the Defendant. On the same day, if the payment of the said note is delayed on the same day, a notarial deed of promissory notes (No. 5292, 2013; hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) to the effect that no objection is raised is raised even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution. On April 23, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure and assignment order with the court No. 2013TT80, which is based on the said notarial deed, and received a seizure and assignment order with respect to the claim for construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction cost claim”) for new construction works held by C to the budget group from this court on April 23, 2013. The above decision was served to the military on April 24, 2013.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure against the claim for the amount of indemnity equivalent to KRW 464,435,463 as the preserved right, with the Chuncheon District Court 2013Kadan1797, Dec. 18, 2013, and received a ruling of provisional seizure against the claim for the construction price of this case from the above court.

C. On March 14, 2014, the budget group deposited KRW 187,762,310 as the balance of the construction price in this court pursuant to Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, on the ground that the decision of seizure or provisional seizure was served on several claims.

In the distribution procedure of the said deposit (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”), this court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the total amount of KRW 187,873,943 to the Defendant on May 22, 2014. At the time, the Plaintiff was present on the said distribution date and stated an objection, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that his claim on the Notarial Deed of this case is primarily null and void with false bonds or is not so even if it is not so.

(b)if any;