2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate C with the Daegu District Court as to the real estate indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the original copy of the judgment 2014Dhap10 with the Changwon District Court’s Changwon Branch Branch as the executive title, and the said real estate was sold in KRW 43,650,000 on September 5, 2016.

B. On October 6, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded that D make a statement of mediation of the Daegu Family Court 2014Dhap139 and the consolation money case as its executive title, and distributed dividends at the above auction procedure. However, on the date of distribution, the said court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes to the Defendant the entire amount of KRW 41,610,060 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) excluding expenses incurred in auction execution from the proceeds of sale, and the Plaintiff made a objection to the said distribution court and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the real estate of this case is the property under title trust with D while the plaintiff was working as a nurse, or is the property formed by the plaintiff and D during marriage, and is subject to division of property, and the plaintiff applied for distribution on the date of distribution as D's creditor, and therefore, the distribution schedule of this case should be determined in proportion to the plaintiff's claim amount and the defendant's claim amount.

B. The property acquired by one side of the married couple in the marriage shall be the special property of the nominal owner of the property, and the property of which identity is unclear to either side of the married couple is presumed to be jointly owned by the married couple (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act). The other side’s cooperation was made in acquiring the property.

Although the presumption does not reverse by the fact that there was a mutual aid and assistance in the marital life, the presumption is presumed in case where the other party proves that he actually acquired the property by bearing the price of the property concerned.