2.(a)

The defendant 7,921,117 won and 1,254.

A. The Defendant applied for a compulsory auction for each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 to 8 as the executive title of the final payment order for D, and applied for a compulsory auction for each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 to 8. Accordingly, in the Changwon District Court E, F (Consolidated) compulsory auction for real estate, Plaintiff A was the final and conclusive judgment for D, and Plaintiff B demanded a distribution with the final and conclusive payment order for D.

B. In the above auction case, on June 17, 201, the said court prepared a distribution schedule to the effect that on February 26, 2010, the said court distributed KRW 100,294,560 to the mortgagee G of the right to collateral security, which was completed on February 26, 2010, and excluded the Defendant and the Plaintiffs from the distribution of dividends.

(However, the above court decided on July 19, 2010 for the real estate stated in the attached list 8 and excluded the above real estate from the above auction).

On the date of the above distribution, the defendant raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to G, and filed a lawsuit against G to the Changwon District Court seeking revocation of fraudulent act against the contract to establish the right to collateral security and revision of the above distribution schedule.

[2] In the instant case, on July 18, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment to the effect that “a contract to establish a mortgage concerning the establishment of a mortgage in the name of G was revoked, and the amount of G 100,294,560 won out of the said distribution schedule was corrected to KRW 100,294,560, and the Defendant’s amount of dividends was corrected to KRW 100,294,560,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 9, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The execution of the distribution according to the distribution schedule which became final and conclusive does not confirm the rights under the substantive law. In case where the creditor who is liable to receive the distribution received the distribution without receiving the distribution, if he received the distribution, the creditor who did not receive the distribution, raises an objection against the distribution.