1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 2017, the following distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) was formulated in the instant distribution procedure with respect to the deposit money deposited by the non-party Republic of Korea (the Fair Trade Commission under its jurisdiction) for creditors of D (the U.S. High Court Branch Decision 2017Da4950) as follows.

The amount of dividends on the grounds of the distribution of the amount of credit to the creditor (the amount of credit) 607,198,467,467 collection right 16,461 Defendant (the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2017Tro 52804), 237,749,283 collection right 6,436,108

B. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and stated an objection to the total amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 26, 2017, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for loans against D by the Defendant’s assertion is invalid because the Defendant and D in collusion prepared a loan certificate, etc. in order to avoid the Plaintiff’s debt collection or compulsory execution, even though there is no existence or no genuine obligation, and the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against D constitutes false representation

Therefore, the distribution schedule should be revised by eliminating the amount of dividends to the defendant and increasing the amount of dividends to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, where the plaintiff asserts that the claim of the defendant was not constituted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, the defendant is liable to prove the fact of the cause of the claim to the defendant, and where the plaintiff claims that the claim was null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy or extinguished by repayment,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007, etc.). B.

Judgment

1) The evidence mentioned above, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (where any number is available, each statement, including branch numbers, witness D's testimony, and this Court.