1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the debtor F and G’s claim against G, the Plaintiff applied for an auction of corporeal movables owned by it.

(D) of this Court;

Defendant also filed an application for auction of F and G corporeal movables on the basis of the No. 63, 2019 No. 63, 2019 (hereinafter “instant No. notarial deed”) with a notary public whose content is a joint and several debt claim for the above loan to F and the above loan to G, and the joint and several debt claim for G.

(E) of this Court.

On May 20, 2019, a corporeal movables auction was conducted, and a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute to the Defendant KRW 1,090,688 and to the Plaintiff KRW 710,312.

The plaintiff raised an objection on the date of distribution, and the enforcement officer of this court deposited dividends with 2019No3287.

On August 14, 2019, the distribution procedure was conducted again on the said deposit and the same distribution schedule was formulated.

(C) On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the full amount of the Defendant’s claim and the amount of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts or absence of dispute with this court, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Although the Defendant did not lend money to the obligor F, the Defendant falsely prepared the instant notarial deed as if there were loan claims.

Since the distribution of dividends against the defendant is illegal, the distribution schedule should be revised.

3. 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 allocation of the burden of proof in a general civil lawsuit. Therefore, in the event that the plaintiff claims that the claims were invalid or extinguished as a false declaration of conspiracy, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the relevant disability

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da2666, Apr. 13, 2012). However, the Plaintiff did not have an interest agreement on the authentic deed prepared by the Defendant, a credit service provider.

This case, on the ground that the amount of debt is excessive.