1. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on August 23, 2019 with respect to voluntary auction cases of real estate B by the Seoul Northern District Court.

1. The following facts are found to be of no dispute between the parties or to be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 8 (including Serial evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A. On September 21, 2018, the Plaintiff, based on the claim of KRW 194,400,000 against D, which jointly and severally guaranteed the indemnity obligation of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”), obtained a decision of provisional seizure of real estate regarding the land of Seongbuk-gu Seoul E (hereinafter “instant land”) and the buildings of KRW 202370 (hereinafter “the instant housing”), owned D by the Jung-gu Seoul District Court on September 21, 2018, and completed the registration of provisional seizure on the same day.

B. On October 25, 2018, at the request of the Industrial Bank of Korea as one of the party parties to the instant land and housing, the auction procedure for real estate was initiated as Seoul Northern District Court B with regard to the instant land and housing.

(c)

On December 18, 2018, the defendant, who is a father of D, submitted a report on the right to demand the distribution of the lease deposit of KRW 150,000,000 as the lessee of the housing of this case to an auction court and a written application for demand for distribution.

(d)

On August 23, 2019, the auction court prepared a dividend list (hereinafter “instant dividend list”) stating that dividends of KRW 240,000,000,000, and KRW 200,000,000, and KRW 500,081,313 are dividends to the Defendant, who is the lessee on the date of confirmation, who is the lessee on the third day, in the order of priority order, among KRW 490,081,313, which shall be actually distributed, excluding the execution cost, which is the date of dividends.

E. On August 27, 2019, the Plaintiff appeared on the dividend date and raised an objection to the full amount of dividends to the Defendant.

2. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in a lawsuit raising an objection to the distribution of a short dividend is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in the general civil procedure. In the event that the plaintiff claims that the defendant did not establish a claim, the fact of the cause of the