1. In relation to the Defendants and the co-defendants of the instant case, F and G on June 11, 2015.

1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendant C and D

가. 갑 1~22의 각 기재와 증인 H, I의 각 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 원고가 내세우는 이 사건 청구원인사실(☞ 별지 ‘청구원인’ 참조)을 그대로 인정할 수 있으므로, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 원고와 위 피고들 사이에서, 그 공탁금 중 1억 5,000만원의 정당한 출급청구권자는 원고로 보아야 한다.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that “Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff is not a legitimate obligee against the Defendant B, the Plaintiff would have obtained the instant executive title (a certificate of execution) in collusion with the Defendant B Co., Ltd., based on the aforementioned facts. As such, the Plaintiff argued to the effect that the seizure and assignment order of claims received in this court on February 22, 2013 is a rightful invalidation in relation to the said Defendants.” However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge such assertion. In addition, in the compulsory execution procedure against a monetary claim with a notarial deed drawn up based on the obligor or his/her agent’s expression of intent of effective preparation, appointment and recognition, and recognition, even if there is a ground for invalidation in the legal act, which forms the basis of the claim indicated in the notarial deed, if the compulsory execution procedure continued without legitimate revocation and suspension, and the seizure and assignment order became legally final and conclusive as a means of social action, barring any special circumstance such as the use of the compulsory execution procedure as a means of social action, the Defendants’ entire assignment order cannot be accepted.

2. The plaintiff's remaining defendants.