1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

Even if a creditor has submitted a written objection in advance to the court of execution because an objection against the distribution schedule can only be raised by oral statement, and it is not permissible to raise an objection in writing, even if the creditor failed to appear on the date of distribution or appeared at the court of execution, if the written objection is not stated, the objection shall not be raised, and an

(Supreme Court Decision 79Da1846 Decided January 27, 1981) returned to the instant case, and the date for consultation on distribution was designated on October 30, 2017 after a decision of sale was issued in the compulsory execution procedure for the instant corporeal movables, and the date for consultation on distribution was determined on October 30, 2017, and the execution officer deposited the proceeds with the Jung-gu District Court 2017Hun6796 on the said date for consultation on distribution. In order to proceed with the distribution procedure for the said deposit (Article 252 and 256 of the Civil Execution Act), the fact that the date of distribution was designated as January 25, 2018 to the same court C, but the fact that the Plaintiff failed to appear on the date of distribution can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the plaintiff as the creditor did not state an objection to the entries in the distribution schedule on the date of distribution, and therefore, the plaintiff is not eligible to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

[A] Even if the instant lawsuit is assumed to be lawful, the burden of proving that the Defendant’s claim is false, is the Plaintiff (the same applies to the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment).

() Each notarial deed, the basis of the Defendant’s claim (as at the time of preparation of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the debtor D was not present at the time of preparation of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, but the notary public appears to have prepared each notarial deed after confirming the power of attorney attached with D’s certificate of personal seal impression. The debtor D is part of the Defendant from May 16, 2016 to July 15, 2016, which was after the Notarial Deed was prepared on Jan. 29, 2016.