1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff, Defendant, and D are Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”).

2) On August 25, 2016, in the distribution procedure of E-owned movables, Jinwon District Court (C) drafted a distribution schedule (Evidence A 5-2) stating that the Defendant, who is the seizure authority, distributes the amount of KRW 3,170,526, 3,572,124, D, 845,473, and KRW 24,518,729 to the Plaintiff, respectively, to the Defendant, who is the seizure authority.

3) On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends of the Defendant. On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on August 29, 2016, which was one week thereafter. (4) Meanwhile, F (E representative director) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to object to a non-permission of compulsory execution based on each of the above deeds on the grounds that a notary public did not have any real claim on the money loan agreement No. 122, No. 122, and the money loan loan agreement No. 27, 2015 (F was entered as the debtor and E as the joint guarantor, and the Defendant seized E movables with each of the above deeds on the money loan loan agreement No. 27, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deeds”).

5) The Seoul Central District Court rendered a favorable judgment of F on September 21, 2016. However, the appellate court (2017Na2000863) filed by the Defendant rendered a judgment in favor of F on September 21, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the F’s claim upon cancelling the judgment of the first instance court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is, on May 9, 2018, determined that F had the intent to pay the amount stated in the said notarial deed to the Defendant at the time when the said notarial deed was prepared.

(b) judgment;