1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 26, 2015 with respect to the distribution procedure B case of the Seoul Central District Court, the defendant is the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2014Da516319 (the main lawsuit), 2014Gahap58482 (Counterclaim) against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) which was sentenced on January 9, 2015, with respect to the deposit claims against the non-party company’s bank, etc., on April 9, 2015, with respect to the claim amounting to KRW 77,015,831 (the Seoul Central District Court 2015TT 10013).

B. On April 10, 2015, the Defendant issued a notarial deed of a loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “the Defendant lent KRW 101,867,547 to the Non-Party Company on April 31, 2015,” which was issued by a notary public from the Non-Party Company on April 10, 2015, pursuant to Seoul General Law Firm 2015, the Defendant received a claim attachment and a collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT 10386) with respect to the deposit claims against the Non-Party Company on the Non-Party Company’s Bank, etc.

C. After that, the Bank deposited KRW 41,959,178 in the Seoul Central District Court in gold No. 12768 in 2015, and the auction court opened the date of distribution on October 26, 2015 and prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 24,016,238 out of KRW 41,948,528 to be actually distributed to the Plaintiff, and KRW 17,932,290 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 16,161,961 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 30, 2015, which was seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 through 6 evidence, Gap 8 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties violates the prohibition of dual representation as stipulated in Article 56-3 of the Notary Public Act, and is null and void. Moreover, since the Defendant in collusion with the Nonparty Company prepared a false bill, it is premised on the fact that the instant notarial deed is authentic.