1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on September 27, 2016, this Court against the Defendant regarding the distribution procedure case of Daejeon District Court Act.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 29, 2016, the Intervenor loaned KRW 25,000,00 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor to the Intervenor. The Intervenor paid the said money to the Intervenor by March 4, 2016. If the Intervenor delays reimbursement, the Intervenor paid damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum to the Plaintiff. In the event of the Intervenor’s delay, the Intervenor drafted a notarized deed of notary E office 2016,971, stating that there is no objection to compulsory execution immediately.

B. F deposited KRW 5,692,955 with the Daejeon District Court 2016Hun-Ba1624, which was the supplementary participant as the principal deposit, and deposited KRW 55,692,955 with the Daejeon District Court. On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received the Daejeon District Court 2016TTT 7074 and the collection order with regard to the Intervenor’s right to claim payment of the deposit money.

C. As to the Intervenor’s right to claim payment of the deposit money, G was proceeding with Daejeon District Court Decision 2016TTTT 52506, Daejeon District Court 2016TTT 7247, and H received each claim attachment and collection order from Daejeon District Court 2016TT 7246 (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”). DD distribution procedure was conducted by the Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”).

On September 27, 2016, among KRW 55,696,244, the dividend court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 2,643,978 to G; KRW 26,94,705 to the Defendant; KRW 20,830,559 to H; and KRW 5,227,002 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection as to KRW 10,00,00 among the Defendant’s dividend amount; G, as to KRW 9,795,551 out of the Defendant’s dividend amount; the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution; G, as the court of this case’s 2016Gadan21143.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap 2, 3, Gap 11, Eul 7-1 to 4, Eul 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion (1) money from the Defendant who is in the relationship of marriage relationship with the intent of not paying the construction cost to the sewage supplier.