1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on November 28, 2013 by the above court with respect to the case of compulsory auction by official auction by Seoul Northern District Court E.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2012, the Seoul Northern District Court E real estate compulsory auction procedure commenced on November 16, 2012, upon the Plaintiff’s application with respect to the first floor F No. 75 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. During the above compulsory auction procedure on November 28, 2013, a court of execution opened a date of distribution to set at KRW 281,689,252, the amount to be actually distributed after deducting the execution cost from the proceeds and interest of the sale of the instant commercial building owned by G, and prepared the instant distribution schedule to the Defendant C, who is the person holding the right to a provisional seizure, for the provisional seizure, KRW 14,909,589,589, KRW 13,418,631, KRW 167,782, KRW 300,00 for lessee to H Co., Ltd., and KRW 65,807,036 for the Plaintiff and KRW 140,576,214 for distribution.

C. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the total amount of the Defendants’ dividends.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In the event that the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claims were not constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims that the claims were invalid or extinguished due to false declaration of agreement, the plaintiff is liable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). In the instant case, the Plaintiff contests the establishment of his claim against Defendant A, B, and C. As such, the burden of proving the establishment of the claim lies in Defendant A, B, and C, and the Plaintiff asserts that the claim of Defendant D was extinguished.