1. The defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on January 13, 2016 in the Daejeon District Court C real estate compulsory auction case.

Basic Facts

On November 19, 2009, the Plaintiff received a payment order with the content that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 300 million and the amount of 10.8% per annum from August 20, 2008 to the service date of the original copy of the payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.” The above payment order was served to D on November 24, 2009, and became final and conclusive on December 9, 2009.

D On November 30, 2009, with respect to the second apartment Nos. 203 (hereinafter “the instant real property”) in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the principal owner of the Defendant, concluded a mortgage contract with the content that the Defendant is the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, D, and the mortgagee, and concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant on December 1, 2009, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring apartment on December 1, 2009.

(2) On July 7, 2015, upon the Plaintiff’s request for auction, the competent Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment of compulsory commencement of auction on the instant real estate, and on January 13, 2016, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant, who is the second priority collective security in the distribution procedure, and KRW 10,674,243 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor of the fourth priority, who is the applicant creditor of the fourth priority, (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution and raised an objection against the full amount of the distribution to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the existence of a dispute, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the ground for claim as to the whole purport of the pleading is null and void since the secured claim does not exist. As such, the amount of the instant distribution schedule to the Defendant should be deleted, and KRW 10,674,243 of the amount of the dividends to the Plaintiff shall be corrected as KRW 30 million, respectively.

Judgment

In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof on the grounds of objection against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution of burden of proof in general civil procedure, so the plaintiff did not establish the defendant's claim.