1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, inasmuch as the Defendant created a security by means of transfer on movable property owned by the said company for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, in spite of the absence of any claim against the Plaintiff, for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, the Defendant shall rectify the dividend amount of KRW 38,79,100 to KRW 0, and KRW 38,79,100 to KRW 38,79,100 to the Defendant in the dividend statement prepared on November 11, 2014 regarding the auction case in relation to the above movable property (hereinafter “instant auction”).

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

A lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is a lawsuit demanding the alteration of the distribution schedule prepared by the distribution court by the creditor, etc. who appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution schedule with the other party raised the objection as the defendant. The creditor, etc. who did not present on the date of distribution and raise an objection against the distribution schedule is not qualified as a party to a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution. If the consultation on distribution is not made on the date of consultation on distribution in the auction procedure for corporeal movables, the execution officer deposit the proceeds of sale and report the reasons therefor to the execution court, and if such report is made, the execution court shall make a distribution pursuant to the distribution procedure under the Civil Execution Act. Thus, the creditor, etc. who participated in the corporeal movables auction procedure may file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and only may file a lawsuit of objection against the distribution statement prepared by the execution officer prior to that date,

However, it is recognized that the execution officer prepared for consultation on the distribution of dividends in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of this case.