1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on November 11, 2014 by the above court with respect to the distribution procedure case of Gwangju District Court Netcheon Branch C.

1. When several orders of seizure and provisional seizure, which the original Defendant received with respect to the claims against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, as stated in Gap evidence 1 through 4, witness D's testimony, witness E's witness E's testimony, are concurrent, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation deposited the above amount of claims under the Gwangju District Court No. 4548 in 2014.

Accordingly, the instant distribution schedule was prepared on November 11, 2014 in the distribution procedure conducted to this court C.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the total amount of dividends to the Defendant.

On November 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) obtained a document of a monetary loan agreement from Cheongam Co., Ltd. to the effect that “the Defendant lent KRW 200 million to Cheongam Co., Ltd. on December 10, 2012; and (b) obtained a seizure and collection order (this Court No. 2013TT9204) and received a dividend in the instant dividend procedure.

However, the defendant, in fact, did not have any claim against Cheongamam Co., Ltd., but falsely prepared a notarial deed of money loan contract.

2. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the defendant's seizure and collection order of this case, which made the notarial deed of this case as the executive title, is null and void. The amount of dividends to the defendant among the distribution schedule of this case should be deleted and distributed to the plaintiffs.

Although the defendant asserts to the effect that the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the Consultative Council on the Development of the Indivesul Regional Development of the Association, which is an incorporated association, in order to secure the claim against Cheongamam, the defendant does not have any contractual relationship with Cheongam, and there is no reliable evidence to acknowledge the assertion.

3. The plaintiffs' claims are accepted on the grounds of the reasons.