1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 19, 2013, based on the original copy of the executory decision of Suwon District Court 2012Kahap4698, the Plaintiff issued a collection order for the claim against D with respect to the claim held by D against the Industrial Bank as 2013TTT4501, Suwon District Court 2013.

B. On March 13, 2014, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order as to the claim held against D against an industrial bank by a notary public of the promissory note amounting to KRW 550,000,000 issued by D, based on the authentic copy of an executory promissory note No. 2014 and 225, based on the authentic copy of an executory promissory note No. 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. The Industrial Bank deposited KRW 13,670,655 as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Hun-440 on the ground of attachment competition.

In the distribution procedure of the Chuncheon District Court's original branch of the said deposit, the execution court made a demand for distribution with the amount of KRW 13,660,176 (= interest of KRW 13,670,655) to be actually distributed on March 30, 2016 to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, each of whom is the collection authority, in the instant case of KRW 10,112,457, KRW 3,547,719, the Defendant made a demand for distribution with the amount of credit of KRW 50 million.

D. The distribution schedule of the contents that distribute dividends in proportion to each other (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”).

On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the total amount of dividends by the Defendant. On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant promissory note was made by a false representation of agreement between the Defendant and D, and thus, the Defendant’s dividend amount should be deleted and the pertinent dividend amount should be additionally distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, D shall be the Defendant on March 4, 2014.