1. Defendant .. of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on September 12, 2014 with respect to the case of compulsory auction by Gwangju District Court C real estate.

Facts of recognition

On August 1, 2009, E, F and G, their successors, commenced the compulsory auction procedure for real estate under this Court C with respect to H No. 101 Dong 1108, 101, Dong-dong 108, the Gwangju Mine District Court 2013Gau132657. Defendant A demanded to the executing court for the payment of the principal and interest of KRW 15,457,530 of the bonds under the 2013Gau 132657. Defendant B demanded for the distribution of the principal and interest of KRW 29,857,140 and interest of KRW 75,818,620 of the bonds under the 2013Ganpo District Court 2013Na2494. The Plaintiff demanded this Court to demand the principal and interest of KRW 30 million and interest of KRW 15,320,547.

On September 12, 2014, the court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that the Plaintiff distributes KRW 15,194,986 to the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mine-gu, the holder of the right to deliver the pertinent tax, etc. among the amount of KRW 82,310,040, which is to be actually distributed after deducting the execution expenses, etc. from the proceeds of sale. However, on September 12, 2014, the court made a distribution schedule with the content that the amount of KRW 15,194,986 to Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant B, and KRW 45,286,37, and the amount of KRW 2,014,140 to the Sungho-ro Co., Ltd., the holder of provisional seizure rights, and raised an objection to the total amount of the Defendants’ dividends.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants’ claim should be corrected on the premise that the Defendants’ claim is genuine. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant distribution schedule should be revised on the premise that the Defendants’ claim is genuine, since the Defendants, even though they did not hold a loan claim against the network D, did not withdraw false evidence or in collusion with D’s heir.

On this issue, the Defendants asserted that they are creditors with respect to the network D.

In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff is liable to prove the cause of the claim to the defendants, and the plaintiff is a false declaration of the claim.