1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, based on an executory notarial deed with respect to D (hereinafter “D”), received a seizure and collection order as to D’s claim for construction price payment against D’s claim under this Court No. 2015TT 25471, based on a claim with executory notarial deed against D (hereinafter “D”), and this was served on E on November 19, 2015, and thereafter, the Plaintiff thereafter won the claim for collection against D and its delay damages.

On the other hand, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the claim for construction price against D’s E, just as the Plaintiff, on the basis of a promissory note No. 821, 2016 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”)’s face value on August 2, 2016, based on the issuer F (D’s representative director), a notary public against D’s deed of promissory note No. 821, which was written on August 2, 2016.

E, as a third debtor, deposited for enforcement of the collection amount of KRW 20 million in accordance with Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and the distribution procedure was commenced in this court C.

On December 9, 2016, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule by stating that KRW 19,991,801, which is the date of distribution, is to be actually distributed to the Plaintiff, who is the person having the right to collect, pro rata to each claim, distribute the amount of KRW 1,193,541, and KRW 18,798,260 to the Defendant, the person having the right to collect, who is the person having the right to collect. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, stated an objection against the whole amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed

2. The gist of the cause of the claim is that the Promissory Notes in this case are invalid since the act of causing the issuance was conducted by false representation in collusion.

Therefore, the Defendant’s seizure and collection order for the Defendant’s E based on the instant notarial deed is merely null and void in relation to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant who received the dividend should be excluded from the dividend, and the amount distributed to the Defendant should be distributed to the Plaintiff.