1. The above court is the High Government District Court C and the same court D(Dual) case for compulsory auction of real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 18, 2013, with respect to promissory notes issued on January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a No. 43 of 20,000 won at face value to the Defendant, and issued a notarized deed as a notary public on January 25, 2013.

B. The defendant made the above notarial deed as the executive title, and applied for a compulsory auction as to F apartment No. 704, 1303, Jungyang-gu, Jungyang-gu, Yongsan-gu as the plaintiff's owner.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a suit of objection as to the above No. 2013da50313 with respect to the said No. notarial deed, and filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with the same court No. 2013da5011. As security, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20,000 with the said court No. 1373.

On January 9, 2015, the court prepared a distribution schedule to the effect that the Plaintiff lost, and that the auction procedure (the above court C, D (duplicate) continued with respect to the above real estate, and that the above court distributed KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 9, 2015, and that the Defendant distributes surplus KRW 59,006,222 to the Defendant.

E. Meanwhile, the defendant is the plaintiff.

As to the money deposited as stated in paragraph (1), the original district court issued a seizure and collection order under the title of execution with the original district court Musan Branch 2014TTT3862, and received the said deposit on March 19, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As shown in the above facts of recognition, as long as the Defendant received the above money based on the collection order for KRW 20,000,000 on March 19, 2015, which was after the date of the preparation of the instant distribution schedule, as shown in the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the above claim was extinguished by repayment as of the date of closing argument of the instant case.

Therefore, the above distribution schedule that distributes claim 20,000,000 won to the defendant on the above notarial deed is illegal, and the above amount should be distributed to the plaintiff who is the owner of the above real estate, so the defendant's dividend amount of KRW 20,00,000 shall be KRW 0,000, and KRW 59,006,222 of the plaintiff's dividend amount shall be KRW 79,06.