1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on February 1, 2017 by the said court with respect to the distribution procedure case of Red Branch C of the Daejeon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 2015, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and E drafted a notarial deed stating “debt amount: KRW 400 million,” “loan details”, “debtor: D”, and “creditor E” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) by a law firm F288 on November 4, 2015.

B. On November 17, 2015, the Daejeon District Court issued an order of seizure and assignment of claims against KRW 471,276,712 of the defect-backed security deposit return claims against D Company G (hereinafter “G”) by Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015TT 3080, and the above order of seizure and assignment of claims was served on G on the 20th of the same month.

On December 7, 2015, E transferred KRW 108,414,00 among the above seizure and total claims to the Defendant, and notified it to G as content certification on the same day.

C. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order as to KRW 676,316,939, out of the claim for return of the foregoing defect security deposit held by the Daejeon District Court 2016TT 2692 against G. D.

Since then, G deposited KRW 115,474,049 with the deposited person as the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. on the grounds of competition with seizure, as the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court in 2016, G deposited the deposited amount of KRW 115,474,049. On February 1, 2017, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the total amount of KRW 115,457,722 to the Defendant on February 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The Plaintiff appeared on the said distribution date and raised an objection against the total amount of the deposited amount, and then filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on February 2, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion E did not at all lend KRW 400 million to D, E seizes the joint representative director H and I’s seal impression, and prepares the instant notarial deed in falsity.