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

A. The plaintiff is the collection creditor of the non-party East F&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party company"), and the defendant is the whole creditor of the non-party company.

B. The non-party company filed an application for compulsory auction against B real estate by the Daegu District Court on real estate owned by the one-stople Distribution Company as a creditor of the non-party company for a short-term sale and distribution company.

C. On January 28, 2014, the Defendant issued an order for the payment of the construction cost in Busan District Court Decision 2010 tea21910 against Nonparty Company as the title of execution of the order for the payment of the construction cost in Busan District Court Decision 2014TT2609, the Busan District Court issued an order for the attachment and assignment of the claim for KRW 770 million among the dividends that Nonparty Company would receive in the above auction case.

On the other hand, on September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a collection order as to KRW 27,069,336 of the dividends to be received by the non-party company in the above auction case under the Busan District Court Decision 2007Gau45324, Busan District Court Decision 2014Dang23268, which held that the Plaintiff issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of the claims against the non-party company.

E. On July 9, 2015, the said auction court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 369,60,000 to the applicant creditor (mortgage) to the Defendant in the order of priority on distribution, and the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and stated an objection against KRW 27,069,336 out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and then filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution within one week.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4, and 5

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has the right to seize and collect priority over the plaintiff, but because the defendant in collusion with the non-party company received a false payment order, the defendant asserts that he does not have the right to receive dividends only to the amount subject to the plaintiff's seizure and collection order out of the amount of dividends.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant in collusion with the non-party company received a false payment order, and the plaintiff's assertion needs to be examined further.