1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on May 26, 2016 with respect to the distribution procedure case of the Incheon District Court E, the defendant is against the defendant.

1. The same facts as indicated in the grounds for the claim, and the fact that the plaintiffs appeared on the date of distribution of the distribution procedure of the instant case on May 26, 2016, and raised an objection against the whole amount of the dividends to the defendant does not have any dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 250,00,000 for reinforced concrete construction cost based on a construction subcontract (hereinafter “instant contract”) of November 12, 2013 against the Defendant F claimed by the Defendant was merely KRW 130,000,000, and its margin had already been fully paid and terminated. As such, the instant distribution schedule should be revised with the content that the Defendant’s dividends were entirely deleted and distributed to the Plaintiffs.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant has the remainder claim of KRW 204,55,00 for the secondary construction cost of reinforced concrete based on the contract of this case, and the above amount is reasonable for the defendant to pay dividends to the defendant. Thus, the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiffs' claim.

3. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a 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. Therefore, in a case where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and in a case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy or extinguished by repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). It is reasonable to view whether the Defendant’s claim for construction price under the instant contract against F exists, return to the instant case, and whether the Defendant’s claim for construction price against F exists.

In full view of the evidence No. 1-5, evidence No. 11-1 through No. 7, each of the evidence No. 11-1, evidence No. 11-1, and the result of the submission of an order to submit financial information by our bank, and the overall purport of the pleadings, Defendant and Nonparty G against Nonparty H on April 29, 2014.