1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 16, 2008, the Plaintiffs were forced to commence compulsory sale of 1/3 shares owned by E among the 156,392 square meters of F forest in Gwangju City (hereinafter “instant real estate”) based on the executory copy of the mediation protocol in the Suwon District Court Branch of Suwon-nam Branch 2005Gahap1110 on November 16, 2008.

B. Meanwhile, on November 19, 2007, the Defendant: (a) completed the provisional attachment registration of shares of KRW 1/3 of the instant real estate owned by Suwon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Kadan51226) with the claim claim amounting to KRW 200 million for E; (b) filed an order to return KRW 200,000,000 from the said court on December 27, 2007, with the Suwon District Court 2007Kadan51226; and (c) filed an order to return KRW 200,000,000 with the Suwon District Court 20,000,000 won. The said order was finalized on January 18,

C. In the above compulsory auction procedure, when a court of execution distributes the amount of KRW 1,060,506,260 to be actually distributed as of February 25, 201, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 94,729,381, and KRW 94,729,382, and KRW 94,729,382, and KRW 72,543,262 to the Defendant according to the ratio of each amount of credit between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The Plaintiffs appeared on the date of the above distribution and stated an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and then filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Gap evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Defendant’s claim for refund of the purchase price against the Defendant E (hereinafter “instant claim”) is a false claim that does not exist actually, the instant distribution schedule should be corrected by eliminating the amount of dividends to the Defendant and distributing it to the Plaintiffs.

B. Around 2002, the Defendant lent the sum of KRW 200,000,000 to H’s son for four times as H’s election fund, and E, a student of H, is the same.