1. On August 18, 2015, the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by this court with respect to A real estate auction case in this Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2009, the Defendant completed the establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s right to collateral security”) consisting of 600 million maximum debt amount as to the real estate stated in the attached list No. 2 of the attached list owned by Seojin Co., Ltd., Ltd. (the former trade name before the alteration). On May 17, 201, the Plaintiff completed the establishment registration of a mortgage consisting of 2.4 billion maximum debt amount as to each of the real estate listed in the attached list owned by

B. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a discretionary auction of real estate for each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and rendered a final decision on January 20, 2014.

C. On the date of distribution that came into force on August 18, 2015, this Court drafted a distribution schedule stating that each of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2,171,894,08 won is distributed to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security on the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2, and KRW 366,521,749, respectively (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 228,105,992 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The burden of proving the grounds for objection to a distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer to a distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In the event that the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims that the claim has been invalidated or extinguished, the plaintiff is liable to prove

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007). In light of the following, it is not sufficient to recognize that the secured debt of the Defendant’s right has been secured solely by the statement of evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the secured debt of the Defendant’s right was secured.

2.