1. Defendant .. of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on May 25, 2017 with respect to the case of compulsory auction of real estate D in Gwangju District Court D.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 23, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s application, the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate was carried out as the Gwangju Northern District Court D with respect to the land and building owned in Gwangju Northern-gu.

B. On September 6, 2016, E issued to Defendant B a promissory note with a face value of KRW 50 million, payment date at sight, and each of the promissory notes with a face value of KRW 42 million for Defendant C, and payment date at sight. On the same day, a notary public prepared and issued a notarial deed with a content that recognizes the compulsory execution of the said Promissory Notes from a law firm Seom (No. 985) and No. 984 on September 6, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “each notarial deed of this case”).

In the above auction procedure, the Defendants made a demand for distribution on the basis of each of the instant notarial deeds, and on the date of distribution implemented on May 25, 2017, the said court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the amount of KRW 80,88,393 to the Plaintiff, among the amount of KRW 134,436,125 to be actually distributed according to the amount of each claim against the Plaintiff and the Defendants, KRW 29,102,028 to the Defendant B, and KRW 24,45,704 to the Defendant C in the same order.

On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 1, 2017, against all of the dividend amounts against the Defendants among the instant distribution schedule on the date of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Evidence No. 5

2. The parties' assertion

A. Each claim of the Plaintiff Defendants is a non-existent claim, and, in collusion between E and the Defendants, each of the instant notarial deeds was prepared in order to reduce the Plaintiff’s share to receive dividends, and thus, each of the instant notarial deeds was invalid as it was based on the false representation of agreement between E and the Defendants.

Of the instant distribution schedule, the amount distributed to the Defendants ought to be corrected to be additionally distributed to the Plaintiff.