1. Changwon District Court I (J, K, L, M, and N (Dual) prepared by the said court on August 28, 2014 in the auction procedure for real estate.

1. On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 350 million to the Medical Foundation (hereinafter “instant legal entity”); and (b) received the establishment of a collateral with the maximum debt amount of KRW 650 million in the second priority on the real estate indicated in the attached list; (c) on September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for an auction of real estate rent with Changwon District Court I (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) around September 20, 2012, when the said legal entity did not repay its debt; and (d) filed an application for the auction of real estate rent (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

(B) On August 28, 2014, the above court rendered a decision to commence auction in duplicate as stated in the purport of the claim. At the auction procedure of this case, on August 28, 2014, the above court distributed each amount stated in the purport of the claim to Defendant 1 through 7 andO as each wage obligee, and distributed the same according to the distribution schedule that the Plaintiff would not distribute it to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends against Defendant 1 through 7 andO, respectively, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 3, 2014.

Defendant F was present on the date of the above distribution and raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Seoul Saemaeul Community Fund (=8,050,200 - 5,033,32 won), which was distributed to Nonparty F by Nonparty F with the first priority collective security right.

The O died on January 10, 2013.

He had his spouse P and Q, Defendant H and his children, P and Q, but P and Q have renounced their inheritance (the Changwon District Court 2013 Doz. 223) and they became the sole heir of Defendant H.

The instant legal entity was established around May 17, 2010 and prepared to open a hospital under the name of “a hospital”, but did not actually open the hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 20, 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants were false wage creditors or were reimbursed for the last three months, and thus, the Defendants should delete the amount of dividends and distribute it to the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee.

B. As to the grounds for objection to a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the burden of proof.