1. The case is prepared by the said court on August 22, 2016 with respect to the compulsory auction of real estate C in the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch C.

1. Preparation of the distribution schedule of this case;

A. In the auction procedure on the order of two lots outside 970 square meters in Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, and Gyeong-dong, the Defendant A was a person holding the provisional seizure of KRW 10,000,000 as the claimed amount, and the Defendant B was distributed as the person holding the provisional seizure of KRW 9,00,000 as the claimed

B. On August 22, 2016, a court of execution prepared and presented a distribution schedule to the Plaintiff, the applicant creditor of the distribution date, KRW 19,969,527, and KRW 4,302,314 to Defendant A, the person holding the provisional seizure right, and KRW 3,872,082 to the same Defendant B (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), and the Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of the Defendants’ dividends.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 14, 2007, after the Plaintiff’s debtor He transferred the registration of the transfer of the instant real estate on November 14, 2007, Defendant A completed the execution of each provisional attachment on November 20, 207, and Defendant B completed the execution of each provisional attachment on November 21, 2007.

Defendant A is the denial of the network E, F and his heir, and Defendant B is the F and his heir, and Defendant B is the early car of Defendant A.

B. The Defendants completed the provisional seizure for the purpose of evading the net E’s obligation without any cause. Therefore, the Defendants should delete the dividend amount to the Defendants and distribute the dividends to the Plaintiff.

3. The judgment of the defendant as to the claim against the defendant A was not present at the date of pleading without submitting a written answer even after being served with the written complaint of this case. Thus, all of the plaintiff's allegations are deemed to have been

Since there is no preserved right in the decision of provisional seizure that is the basis for the defendant's distribution, it is improper to distribute the provisional seizure to the defendant based on provisional seizure.

The defendant's dividend amount shall be deleted and the plaintiff shall be distributed to correct the distribution schedule.

4. The burden of proving the grounds for objection against distribution as to the claim against Defendant B shall also be in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure.

The Plaintiff asserts that the claim of the Defendant was not established.