1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor who holds a claim for the price of goods based on the payment order issued by Busan District Court 2014 tea80666 against D (hereinafter “D”).

B. On October 28, 2014, D: “10,000,000 won out of the 317,000,000,000, borrowed from the Defendant on March 13, 2014, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed of money loan for transfer security (No. 923, 2014, document No. 217,000,000,000, which was borrowed from the Defendant on November 30, 2014) to pay the remainder until March 31, 2015, and to pay interest at 10% per annum; for the performance of the said obligation, six machinery, such as Rabers and pan charters, are provided as security, but if the said obligation is not fulfilled, no objection is raised even if compulsory execution is carried out immediately).

C. Based on the original copy of the above payment order, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction for corporeal movables owned by each D on the basis of the above notarial deed, and the court opened the date of distribution on December 31, 2015, and prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 49,413 to the Plaintiff among KRW 7,733,641, the amount to be actually distributed, and KRW 7,234,228 to the Defendant.

The plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of dividends of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant's claim against D is false, the defendant has no right to receive dividends in the above distribution procedure.

In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff must assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for objection against distribution, so the creditor who has filed an objection against distribution by asserting that the other party's claim is disguised, bears the burden of proof therefor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178 delivered on November 14, 1997). However, the plaintiff is another company operated by the defendant F, the actual representative of D.