1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Seoul Eastern District Court C's compulsory auction case is above.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the second to fourth to the second to the second to the second to the third to the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, the court's explanation concerning this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the claim against Defendant D exists in excess of KRW 60,00,00,00, the amount of dividends against the Defendant ought to be revised to KRW 60,000. Based on this, the amount of dividends shall be calculated on the basis thereof. Since the lawsuit brought by the creditor against the distribution is a relative resolution over the distribution amount of the creditors who are the opposing parties, the judgment is effective only among the creditors who are the parties to the lawsuit. As such, even if it is recognized as having no claim against the Defendant as a result of the examination of the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, it is reasonable to consider the disputed portion of the claim against the Plaintiff within the limit of the claim amount owned by the other creditors who did not raise an objection, and to maintain the remainder as the amount of dividends of the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da3818, May 22, 1998), the Plaintiff’s claim amount should be reduced to KRW 171,087,263, and the Plaintiff’s claim amount to be reduced to KRW 1000,7000,00.

Therefore, this case.