A. In around 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming rent against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (Seoul Western District Court 2008Kadan10947) and received a final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and filed an application for compulsory auction (Seoul Western District Court D; hereinafter “prior auction”) of real estate owned by C with the final judgment as executive title.

B. On June 8, 2015, an application for payment order filed against C under the name of the Defendant for payment order against C was filed (Seoul Western District Court 2015 tea29222).

Accordingly, the payment order issued on June 18, 2015 and sent to the debtor C was impossible to serve due to the addressee's uncertainty, the court ordered the debtor's address correction. On July 3, 2015, the defendant's address correction order was served on the defendant himself.

After July 9, 2015, the application for re-delivery was submitted under the name of the defendant, and the subsequent order for the correction of address was served on the defendant's wife E in the above apartment, and the payment order was served on E in the last time, and the payment order was finalized on August 27, 2015.

C. On September 18, 2015, an application for demand for distribution was submitted in the prior auction procedure in the name of the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant is the creditor who was ordered to pay the said KRW 566,683,375 in the said name of the Defendant.

(B) On September 18, 2015, E also submitted a request for distribution of KRW 1,533,700,000 on the ground that E had received a payment order against E on September 18, 2015.

Then, when the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 8,295,28 to the Plaintiff and the Defendant 17,70,237 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff, on the date of distribution on August 26, 2016, raised an objection to distribution against the 15 persons entitled to demand distribution, including the Defendant, after raising an objection to distribution on the date of distribution, and thereafter against the 15 persons entitled to demand distribution, including the Defendant.