1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The compulsory auction of real estate D in the Gwangju District Court's Macheon Branch D.

1. The reasons why this Court stated in this part of the underlying facts are as follows: “Defendant C” as “C; “A” as “A”; “A” as “B” and “B” as “B” branch of the District Court, and as it is stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition to the following in the third part of the judgment of the first instance, and as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

E. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the executing court, the first instance court sentenced C to the amount of KRW 5,979,813 as KRW 0 on the ground that there is no evidence to prove C’s loan claims against C, and sentenced the amount of KRW 24,922,200 on the Plaintiff to the amount of KRW 30,902,013 on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove C’s loan claims against E, and the amount of dividends against the Plaintiff out of the said distribution schedule was changed to KRW 30,902,013 on the grounds that this part of the judgment became final and conclusive.”

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant dividend schedule prepared by the Defendant to distribute KRW 6,850,396 to the Defendant is unreasonable, since the Defendant’s loan claims asserted as the preserved right on October 20, 2010, which was alleged as the Defendant’s right to preserve each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “loan claims”) were non-existent false claims.

As to this, the Defendant: (a) decided to own 1/2 shares, instead of bearing KRW 2.2,50,000,000, out of the successful bid price of 1,180 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) paid KRW 2.2,50,000 to E; and (c) thereafter, on April 12, 201, E agreed to sell the instant land at KRW 31,00,000 and pay KRW 15,00,000,000 to the Defendant; and (d) accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant loan claim exists.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure, so the Plaintiff did not establish the Defendant’s claim.