2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. As to the claim for the price of goods against H (trade name: I), each of the Plaintiffs received the decision of provisional seizure (the Changwon District Court 2018Kadan10583 and the Daegu District Court 2018Kadan305), and the Defendant (mutualJ) received the decision of provisional seizure (the Changwon District Court 2018Kadan950), and the seizure and collection order (the Changwon District Court 2018 Tadan104709) transferred to the original seizure (the Changwon District Court 2018 Tadan104709).

B. After receiving a delivery of the foregoing provisional attachment decision, H deposited 56,100,000 won as to the F’s debt amount, and on July 18, 2018, the distribution procedure (the Changwon District Court E) began on the deposit.

C. On October 24, 2018, the Changwon District Court opened a distribution date and prepared a distribution schedule that distributes 56,108,905 won to the Plaintiff A (the claimed amount of KRW 24,80,000) in proportion to each claim amount, 12,270,676 won to the Plaintiff B (the claimed amount of KRW 31,30,000), and the Plaintiff C (the claimed amount of KRW 34,180,00) in proportion to each claim amount of KRW 13,39,735 won, and the Defendant (the claimed amount of KRW 52,842,410), and the Plaintiffs raised an objection against the dividend amount of KRW 20,716,041 on the date of distribution.

(On the other hand, the defendant also raised an objection against the amount of dividends of the plaintiffs on the date of the above distribution). The grounds for recognition are as follows: evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that, despite the Defendant’s collusion with F and H on May 2018, the Defendant received 56,100,000 won directly from H around the end of May, 201, as if the claim against F still remains, despite having been fully repaid, the Defendant was entitled to dividends in the dividend procedure.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion only with the statements of Gap 1 and 4, and there is no other evidence, so the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiffs' claims for conclusion are all dismissed on the ground that they are without merit.