1. A distribution schedule prepared on July 24, 2014 by the above court with respect to the case of compulsory auction by J real estate by Seoul Western District Court.

1. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants, as creditors of K, have prepared on July 24, 2014, a distribution schedule (the distribution rate of 3.36%; hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) the same as the entries in the original distribution column of the attached list in the Seoul Western District Court in the case of J real estate compulsory auction conducted with respect to the land and buildings of Yongsan-gu Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, as the creditors of K. The Plaintiffs were present on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the entire amount of the Defendants’ dividends on July 25, 2014, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 25, 2014, the facts that the parties did not dispute between them, or that the said court is obvious and that subparagraph 1 was stated.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants should delete the amount of dividends to the defendants and distribute it to the plaintiffs in the distribution schedule of this case because they are false creditors with no claims against K. The defendants asserted that since they joined a fraternity operated by K and did not receive the fraternity payment even though they did not receive the fraternity payment, the defendants' assertion that the distribution against the defendants is justified.

B. (1) The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in a case where the plaintiff asserts that his claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and in a case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim has become invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy or has become extinguished

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007). According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 11, Defendant I and G in the above Seoul Western District Court J real estate compulsory auction case, Defendant I and K constitute a promissory note with face value of 900,000,000 prepared by K on April 12, 2012.