1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 19, 2013, D issued a copy of a promissory note as of December 24, 2013, which is set forth in the Defendant’s face value of KRW 50 million, and the due date, and then a notary public drafted a notarial deed as of December 668, 2013 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On December 27, 2013, the Defendant applied for a collection order for the amount of KRW 50 million on the ground of the instant authentic deed to the Sungwon District Court, Sungwon District Court (Seoul District Court), D, the debtor D, and the third debtor company, and Han Bank, and received the acceptance of the acceptance on January 31, 201 of the same month, and the said decision reached the third debtor on January 6, 2014.

C. On the other hand, on December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order on the part of the debtor D, the third debtor, the new bank, the Han Bank, the Han Bank, etc., and served the third debtor on the 19th of the same month.

(A) The appeal filed by D against D, but the appeal was dismissed and the decision became final and conclusive).

On February 28, 2014, on the date of distribution of distribution procedures for Suwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch C Branch, which was in progress with respect to D’s assets, a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 628,846 to the Plaintiff as each collection authority, and KRW 462,386 to the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 5, 2014, which was within one week after filing an objection against D’s total amount of distribution.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the assertion is that the Plaintiff’s claim against D based on the notarial deed of this case is false, so the distribution schedule against the Defendant should be revised so that the amount of dividends against the Defendant can be added to the total amount of dividends against the Plaintiff.

B. In a case where the plaintiff asserts that in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff did not establish the defendant's claim, the plaintiff is liable to prove the cause of the claim to the defendant, and the plaintiff is so.