A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Gwangju District Court for a payment order against C and D for the payment of goods.

On July 22, 2015, the above court ordered the payment of KRW 12,439,860 to the creditor (Plaintiff) jointly and severally, and the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2015 to the service date of the authentic copy of the payment order, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and the expenses for demand procedure.”

(Seoul District Court 2015j231). The above payment order was finalized on August 7, 2015.

B. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) drafted a notarial deed of a money loan agreement for security by means of transfer (No. 509, 2015, hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 30,000,00 to C and D on August 10, 2014. The joint and several obligors, C and D, who are jointly and severally liable, recognize that there is no objection even if they are immediately forced execution, and provide movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as security for transfer” (a notary public is a law firm, No. 509, 2015, hereinafter “instant authentic deed”).

C. On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff seized movable property listed in the attached Table 2, based on the said payment order. D.

On December 17, 2015, the Gwangju District Court drafted a distribution schedule stating that the amount to be distributed in actual dividends is KRW 2,970,378 as follows:

The dividends of Defendant 1’s 2,689,061 won 2,689,061 won 2,689,061 won 13,538,497 won 92,598 won by Defendant 2 who is subject to attachment right (27,592,034 won) 27,598 won by Defendant 2 who is subject to attachment right (2015.4208), 18,719 won (based on recognition) 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties' assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that since the notarial deeds of this case prepared by the defendant, C and D were prepared in collusion with the defendant for the purpose of evading obligations, the plaintiff should delete the amount of dividends to the defendant and distribute it to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant asserts that the distribution schedule should be corrected.