1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on August 28, 2015 with respect to the distribution procedure B case of the Seoul Central District Court, the defendant is the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap516319 (main office) and 2014Gahap588482 (Counterclaim), the Plaintiff received a claim amounting to KRW 100,000,000 and a collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2015TTTTT10621) with respect to the right to claim payment of deposit money deposited under gold No. 30257 (Counterclaim) in the provisional execution declaration case against CSSS Korea Center Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. On April 10, 2015, the Defendant issued a notarial deed for a loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “Defendant lent KRW 101,867,547 to Nonparty Company on April 11, 2015,” by Seoul General Law Firm 2015, the Defendant issued the notarial deed for a loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”). Based on the notarial deed of this case, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order for the said deposit (Seoul Central District Court 2015Ma10386).

C. After the Seoul Central District Court B, the distribution procedure for the said deposit was carried out, and the said auction court opened a date of distribution on August 28, 2015, and prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 75,930,007 to the Plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 24,197,031 to the Defendant, respectively, to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

On March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 24,069,993 among the dividends to the Defendant on the aforementioned date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 16, 2015, within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties violates the prohibition of dual representation as stipulated in Article 56-3 of the Notary Public Act, and is null and void. Moreover, since the Defendant in collusion with the Nonparty Company prepared a false bill of intent, the instant notarial deed against the Defendant, which is premised on the authenticity of the instant notarial deed, is distributed.