1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on December 23, 2015 by the said court with respect to the distribution procedure C case of the Chuncheon District Court's original branch court.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 20, 2006, the Chuncheon District Court 2006Na1392, which the Plaintiff filed against D, concluded a mediation to the effect that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,50,000,000,000, which shall be paid to the Plaintiff until November 30, 2006, but if it is delayed, it shall be paid by adding the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.”

B. On January 30, 2007, D prepared and delivered to the Defendant a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “The amount of KRW 90,000,000,000 from the Defendant on November 30, 2004 shall be due and payable on February 6, 2007.”

C. On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff seized D’s Track-gu Seoul District Court 2015No485 with respect to D’s Track-gu, etc.

The Defendant reported 90,000,000 won by the instant notarial deed and damages for delay thereof, and made double seizure of D’s Track District Court’s original state support 2015No544 as to D’s Trackter, etc.

E. The distribution court opened a distribution date on December 23, 2015, in order to distribute the subject matter of sale deposited as the original district court’s Jeju District Court’s 2015Hun-981, and distributes the amount of KRW 1,647,232 to the Plaintiff who is the seizure authority and KRW 21,364,788 to the Defendant who is the seizure authority.

A) The Plaintiff made an objection against the amount of dividends distributed to the Defendant. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff D bears a false obligation even though there is no money relationship with the defendant, and the notarial deed of this case is also made up in falsity.

Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case, which is premised on the validity of the notarial deed of this case, should be revised because it is unfair.

B. From March 12, 1998 to 2004, the Defendant lent the sum of KRW 82,000,000 to D several times, and the sum of the interest exceeds KRW 90,00,000.