1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on February 22, 2016 by the above court with respect to the Busan District Court C distribution procedure case, the defendant is against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2016, Busan District Court: (a) deemed the Plaintiff as the first creditor (Seoul District Court 2006TTT 2006TT 1734); (b) 5,288 won (=2,239 won 2,770,049); (c) deemed the Defendant as the second creditor of the first collection (the Busan District Court 2014TT 2014TT 28098) and the second creditor (the Busan District Court 2014TT 204,205TT 204,1257,26465); and (d) drafted a distribution schedule of the Defendant as the second creditor (the Busan District Court 2014TTT 208,208,129 won (the 207,867,4784,7547,7585).

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). B.

The plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends to the defendant, and filed the lawsuit of this case within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant received a loan certificate five times from D as a bond company, prepared a notarial deed for a loan for consumption between D and D, and thereby participated in the distribution procedure of this case by receiving a seizure and collection order. However, the defendant's claim is false in light of the following circumstances: (a) there is a interval between the date of preparation of the loan certificate and the date of preparation of the notarial deed; (b) there is a case where the amount is the same as the date of five authentic deeds; (c) it is suspected that a duplicate notarial deed has been received for one bond; (d) it is difficult to obtain a large amount of debt continuously to lend money to the person bearing the obligation; and (e) it is unclear

As above, the Defendant participated in the distribution procedure of this case after receiving a collection order based on the fraudulent claim, the amount of dividends against the Defendant is deleted.