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

On September 8, 2015, the former office's dividends of 68,810 won in the case of the auction of real estate rent in the court around 2014, the court around 20410, and the amount of 92,380 won in the amount of dividends in the defendant Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin, the defendant National Health Insurance Corporation's dividends of 92,380 won in the amount of dividends of 5,734,50 won in the defendant's Republic of Korea, the amount of dividends of 31,491,120 won in the letter of Seocho tax secretary, and 26,342,51

The Plaintiff asserted that it is a genuine tenant and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and the Defendants asserted that it is the most lessee who is the owner of the Plaintiff and sought the exclusion of distribution.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff ought to prove the true fact that the Plaintiff is a lessee, it is deemed whether the Plaintiff can be recognized as a genuine lessee notwithstanding the Defendants’ rebuttals and counter-proofs.

2. Determination

As to the grounds for the payment of the rent deposit, the lessor was in the form of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife lent a total of KRW 466,846,986 (if the Plaintiff’s credit card is used by the PP husband and wife, it would exceed this amount) from February 2007 to May 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 65,000,000 when the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate from the HP around August 17, 2010 upon the expiration of the period of the leased house residing in the Plaintiff’s residence, set off the Plaintiff’s repayment as part of the loan that the Plaintiff was refunded, and again, the amount raised as KRW 80,00 on December 14, 2012 by raising the deposit amount from KRW 466,846,986, Sep. 30, 200, respectively.

It is recognized that there was a considerable monetary transaction between the plaintiff's husband and wife and the PP couple, and that two copies of a loan certificate as alleged by the plaintiff's plaintiff's husband and wife were made (Evidence A, 4, 5). However, as the plaintiff is, the plaintiff and the lessor are relatively related to marriage, and even if the PP is already liable for a large amount of debts, it is not possible to receive from the plaintiff in reality even if the deposit is increased, it is not possible to demand the increase of 15,000,000 won and the claim that the deposit was increased is not accepted (In addition, even if the debt is liable, if the method of paying the deposit alleged by the plaintiff is considered as reflected in the two lease contract even if the market price is reflected in the debt relationship), considering the opposing circumstances such as the settlement of the loan certificate and the amount of the lease deposit, it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's assertion and evidence alone as a genuine tenant.

3. Conclusion

Claims against the Defendants are without merit.