1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on August 30, 2017 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Busan District Court Branch C.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the deposited amount according to competition between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D’s obligor E and the third financial officer F, the distribution procedure was initiated by the Incheon District Court’s Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s Branch C distribution.

B. On August 30, 2017, the above court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 12,594,975 to the Plaintiff, KRW 11,30,110 to the Defendant, and KRW 3,713,03 to D, among the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution on the date of distribution.

C. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount distributed by the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the amount of dividends against the defendant should be distributed to the plaintiff, since the defendant in collusion with E even though he did not have any claim against E, received dividends by preparing false notarial deeds.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that since the defendant is a creditor who holds the claim of KRW 51,078,409 against E, the distribution of dividends against the defendant is justifiable.

B. Determination 1) The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution also complies with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in a general civil lawsuit. In the event that the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s claim has not been constituted, the Defendant is liable to prove the fact of the cause of the claim, and where the Plaintiff asserts that the claim has been invalidated as a false declaration of agreement or extinguished by repayment, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the grounds for disability or extinguishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). In the instant case, according to each of the evidence No. 6-2 and evidence No. 1, No. 6-2 and No. 1, 2016, No. 382, Dec. 12, 2016, E a notary public of the Defendant under a monetary loan for consumption under