1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s enforcement title against the Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff is a judgment rendered against the Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiff erroneously remitted money to the net F’s account, the predecessor of the Defendants.

Therefore, even though Article 246 (1) 8 of the Civil Execution Act cannot be applied to the defendants, it is unreasonable to distribute the defendants each KRW 500,000 to the defendants on the ground that they are "deposits necessary for maintaining their livelihood for one month" in the distribution procedure case of Seoul Western District Court E.

2. Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Execution Act provides that deposits necessary to maintain a debtor’s livelihood for one month shall not be seized. Such reasons asserted by the plaintiff shall not be grounds for exclusion from the application of Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Execution Act.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that dividends against the Defendants should be excluded pursuant to Article 246(3) of the Civil Execution Act. However, Article 246(3) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “a court may, upon request of a party, either wholly or partially revoke an order of seizure or issue an order of seizure on the claim subject to prohibition of seizure under paragraph (1), taking into account the living conditions and other circumstances of the creditor and the debtor,” apart from whether the Plaintiff may apply for an order of seizure on the claim subject to prohibition of seizure in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the above provision, the distribution schedule cannot be revised as alleged by the Plaintiff through a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution concerning the distribution procedure, in which only a part of the deposits against the Defendants are seized pursuant to Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Execution Act and the deposits required for maintaining livelihood

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be accepted.