A. In the case of the application for the auction of real estate rent (hereinafter “instant auction”) at the Seoul Southern District Court D, Seoul Southern District Court 1,688,675,223, including the sale real estate No. 301 (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) of Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul and the apartment No. 301 (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) and the apartment No. 201), the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 25 million to Defendant B (Fcafeteria) of the instant shopping mall in the order of 5th to the finalized lessee of the instant shopping mall, and the amount of KRW 1,68,675,223 to be actually distributed to Defendant C (G) of the instant shopping mall in the order of 8th.

B. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff, a debtor and owner, appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total dividend amount of the Defendants under the instant distribution schedule, but did not change the distribution schedule. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 31, 2014 in accordance with the aforementioned objection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defendants' main defense

A. Even if the Defendants’ assertion that the dividends against the Defendants were revoked, the revoked dividends should be distributed to H, the 10th creditor who did not receive 100% dividends, and the said dividends should not be distributed to the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no benefit in the lawsuit in this case.

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution filed by the debtor, where a claim is entirely or partially reasonable, the distribution schedule should also be amended for the sake of the creditor who did not raise any objection to the distribution (Article 161(2)2 of the Civil Execution Act). Therefore, even if there is no surplus that can be given to the plaintiff by making the distribution schedule for other creditors as above, the Plaintiff’s obligations equivalent to the modified amount become extinct, and thus, there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendants' defense of this safety cannot be accepted.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As to the claim against the defendant B