1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant D, G, and J shall be revoked.

Chuncheon District Court K and L (Dual).

1. As to this part of the basic facts, this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (1. basic facts). Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that both the Defendants filed a payment order with M using the same certified judicial scrivener office and received a payment order. Accordingly, the Defendants received dividends in accordance with the payment order finalized by M as M did not raise any objection. As to the Defendants’ sales of the instant real estate, which is the only property of M, in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff, with respect to the Defendants’ sales of the instant real estate to C, the said sales contract should be revoked, and there is no false claim to infringe the Plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the distribution schedule should be revised to distribute the amount of dividends to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proving the grounds for objection to a distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution also complies with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In the event that the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims that the claim has become null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy or has become extinguished by repayment,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007). B.

Defendant D Part 1) Defendant D, Defendant D, on August 16, 2006, KRW 10 million for M on August 16, 2006, and Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “N”) operated on September 20, 2006.

Around December 7, 2006, KRW 3 million, KRW 5 million on July 16, 2007, KRW 5 million on July 25, 2007, KRW 43 million on Nov. 28, 2007, and KRW 17 million on Nov. 28, 2007, respectively, lent to M by means of remitting to P, and applying for a payment order on some outstanding amounts. Therefore, it is against M.