1. The Seoul Western District Court E real estate auction application case is prepared on April 3, 2015 by the above court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F and G for a claim for reimbursement amount by Seoul Western District Court 2012Kadan203891, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on June 21, 2012. Based on the above judgment, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction against F-owned real estate and commenced the compulsory auction procedure for real estate E to the said court.

B. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff demanded the distribution of KRW 153,469,589, the sum of the principal and interest based on the above judgment. However, on April 3, 2015, the amount of KRW 14,140,929, and KRW 50,924,180 to Defendant C, KRW 26,728,881 to Defendant D, and KRW 16,66,095 to Defendant B, and KRW 64,589,363 to the Plaintiff, respectively.

C. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff stated an objection against KRW 11,58,125 out of the dividend amount of KRW 14,140,929, the amount of KRW 50,924,180 of the amount of KRW 41,731,04 of the amount of dividends of KRW 50,924,180 of the amount of dividends of KRW 41,731,044 of the amount of dividends of KRW 26,728,81 of the amount of dividends of KRW 26,90,66,095 of the amount of dividends of KRW 16,66,432 of the amount of dividends of KRW 13,65,432 of the amount of dividends of Defendant A, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 8,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In the event that the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff asserts that the claim is null and void as a false declaration or extinguished by repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007, etc.). However, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s assertion that a claim has been established and the content of evidence are contrary to logical and empirical rules.