1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 3,00,000,000 to the Defendant, and received a joint collateral security of KRW 2,150,000,000 with respect to real estate owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) other than KRW 5661,3 square meters, owned by the Defendant.

B. As the Defendant did not perform his obligation, the Plaintiff filed an application for an auction to exercise the security right to each of the instant real estate with the Daegu District Court. At the auction procedure of the Daegu District Court, the distribution schedule was formulated to distribute the remainder of KRW 250,478,80 to the Defendant, the owner of the instant real estate, the amount of KRW 46,601,560, the amount of KRW 2,150,000, and KRW 250,478,808.

C. As a creditor against the Defendant, the Defendant’s Intervenor was rendered a decision on provisional seizure of the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant’s dividends (Seoul District Court Seo-gu District Court Decision 2019Kadan50127).

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Daegu District Court C’s distribution schedule should be amended to reduce the amount of 250,478,808 won to the Defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on January 23, 2019 with respect to the auction case of real estate C, which was executed on January 23, 2019, and to deliver KRW 250,478,808 to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. A person standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution has been present on the date of distribution on the date of distribution and raised an objection under the substantive law against the distribution schedule, and in order for a creditor to appear on the date of distribution and raise an objection against the distribution schedule as a substantive, it is insufficient to say that he is a creditor against the executory obligor under substantive law. The period for requesting a distribution should have been lawfully made by the deadline for requesting a distribution. The creditor who did not lawfully demand a distribution does not have the right to make an objection against the distribution schedule by attending on the date of distribution and making an objection against the substantive nature of the distribution schedule, and such a person is present on the date of distribution, and