1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on November 23, 2015 by the above court with respect to the Busan District Court’s Financial Distribution Procedure case, the Defendants are deemed to be the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. Of the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution as of November 23, 2015, the Busan District Court’s Financial Distribution Procedure for the deposited money 2015 Geum7461, Busan District Court KRW 1,475,846,875, the Plaintiff A and B received 350,231,358 of each of the amount of credit amount of KRW 621,643,835 of the amount of credit as the person holding the right to collect the S&D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S&D”) and KRW 1,475,875 of the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution as of November 23, 2015, KRW 350,231,358 of the amount of credit amount, and KRW 50,976,821, the Defendants received 28,720,112 of the amount of credit amount from each of the non-party companies as the person holding the provisional attachment (hereinafter “S&D court”).

B. The Plaintiffs appeared on the date of distribution, and stated an objection against the Defendants’ claims, and filed the instant lawsuit on November 30, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Excellent Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the grounds for objection in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Thus, in a case where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim was not constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and in a case where the plaintiff claims that the claim was invalid as a false declaration of agreement or extinguished as a result of repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the grounds for disability or extinguishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 2 and No. 5, the Busan District Court 2015Kahap838, Busan District Court's decision on provisional seizure against the non-party company against the defendants, which entered into an agreement with the non-party company that "the non-party company shall pay the defendants total amount of expenses paid by the defendants to the non-party company for the incorporation of the non-party company."