1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 23, 2015, the Defendant was jointly and severally rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and E to pay KRW 337,932,670 and damages for delay thereof to the Defendant. On May 17, 2016, the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju District Court) 2015Na1152 (Main District Court), and the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju District Court), 2016Na10842 (Counterclaim) where the Plaintiff appealed and the E were jointly and severally rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant to pay KRW 243,978,943 and damages for delay thereof.

B. On August 19, 2015, based on the favorable judgment of the above provisional execution sentence, the Defendant received a compulsory decision to commence compulsory auction as to the land specified in attached Table C to the Cheongju District Court C.

C. On February 19, 2013, in the Cheongju District Court 2013Kahap94, the F obtained a decision of provisional seizure and completed the registration of provisional seizure entry by taking the claim amounting to KRW 599,212,00 with respect to the apartment as stated in the [Attachment List No. 2] as the claim amounting to KRW 59,212,00. On August 19, 2015, the Defendant received a decision of compulsory auction (the execution of provisional seizure) from Cheongju District Court C on August 19, 2015.

On June 16, 2016, the Cheongju District Court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 87,700,097 to the Defendant on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and the Plaintiff, the debtor, was present on the said date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 26,295,895 out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 22, 2016, which was seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of demurrer against the defendant, who is the debtor of the auction procedure of this case, filed against the defendant, who has an executory exemplification of the title of execution, is unlawful.

B. Where a debtor raises an objection against a distribution schedule prepared in the distribution procedure, the debtor has an executory exemplification of executive titles.