Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, 6,777,823 won of the dividend amount against Defendant B should be 2,101,755 won, and 8,102,993 won against the Plaintiff should be corrected to 12,779,061 won.

(B) Confession)

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 1-1 and 2 against Defendant C, it is recognized that Defendant C applied against Defendant C for a payment order of lease deposit against the debtor E, which was finalized on April 2, 2014, and that the payment order became final and conclusive on April 2, 2014, and that Defendant C made a demand for distribution to the auction court with a certified copy of payment order on April 3, 2014, which is the final date for filing a request for compulsory auction for the instant real estate auction.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant C made a demand for distribution by attaching a certified copy of the application for payment order, but the defendant C is recognized to have made a demand for distribution by attaching a certified copy of the payment order.

In addition, in filing an application for compulsory execution, an executory exemplification shall be attached to the application, but in a demand for distribution, an executory exemplification or a copy thereof, or other documents proving the qualification for a demand for distribution shall be attached to the written request for distribution (Article 88(1) of the Civil Execution Act and Article 48(2) of the Regulations on Civil Execution). Based on this, in determining based on this, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the demand for distribution by Defendant C is unlawful is not acceptable, since the Defendant C made a demand for distribution by attaching a certified copy of a written application for payment order,

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.