1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff received a decision on provisional seizure of claim by Seoul Western District Court 2014Kadan51442 as to the claim owned by C based on the claim for reimbursement based on the credit guarantee agreement with C.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant received a certificate of the subscription of a promissory note against C regarding the loan claim amounting to KRW 150,000,000, and received a seizure and collection order under the court No. 2014 other bonds 1424 against C based on the above promissory note claim.

C. Accordingly, the Republic of Korea deposited KRW 61,389,853 in Suwon District Court in 2014 as Suwon District Court No. 9464, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant participated in the distribution procedure for the said deposit based on the provisional seizure and the seizure and collection order of the said claim.

On December 17, 2014, the date of distribution of the above distribution procedure, the court drafted a distribution schedule with the purport of allocating KRW 24,653,633 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 36,722,020 to the Defendant, respectively. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 23, 2014, which is within one week.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s claim against C against the Defendant’s assertion is the most advanced claim created by a false agreement between the Defendant and C, the distribution schedule should be corrected with the content that deletes the amount of distribution to the Defendant and distributes it to the Plaintiff, such as the purport of the claim.

B. A creditor who has filed an objection to a distribution shall bear the burden of proof against the other party’s claim in a lawsuit of demurrer to a distribution.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178, Nov. 14, 1997). In light of the above, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's claims against C are false due to the collusion of claims against C, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Rather, the Defendant: ① around July 2010, KRW 100,000,00 to C; ②.