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

A. On September 11, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis with the Seoul Northern District Court 2013Gahap2898, and received a judgment in favor of the said court that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 120,00,000 to the Defendant,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

B. According to the above final judgment against the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff for a real estate owned by the Plaintiff with Seoul Northern District Court B, and the execution court opened the date of distribution on May 29, 2015, and distributed KRW 32,351,535 to the Defendant, the applicant obligee, who was the applicant obligee, in five order of priority, and distributed KRW 1,683,618 to the Defendant, the applicant obligee, in one order of priority by opening an additional date of distribution on July 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In case where the debtor raises an objection against the distribution schedule prepared in the ex officio procedures for determining the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, the debtor who has raised an objection against the creditor who does not have the executory exemplification shall file a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, and the debtor who has raised an objection against the creditor who has the executory exemplification of executive titles shall file a lawsuit of objection against the claim

(Articles 256 and 154(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act. The Plaintiff, a debtor of the distribution procedure in this case, raises an objection to the distribution of dividends against the Defendant, who is an executory title creditor. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a debtor of the distribution procedure in this case, shall file a lawsuit of objection against the Defendant.

However, the Plaintiff is seeking correction of the distribution schedule as the purport of the claim by stating only the case name as “an action of objection” (the Plaintiff clearly stated that the Plaintiff did not intend to modify the purport of the claim on the date of pleading). The substance of the instant lawsuit is deemed to be an action of demurrer against the Defendant. Therefore, the instant lawsuit against the Defendant is dismissed as it is unlawful and unreasonable.