1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff holds a claim for the amount of KRW 609,694,202 against the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “B”), and the Defendant holds a claim for the amount of KRW 4 billion against B.

B. In the provisional attachment (Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan801368, this Court 2014Kadan4141) and the distribution procedure (A) pursuant to the attachment (Seoul District Court 2014Kadan235666) against the money deposited by B (this Court 2014Hun-Ba80), this Court drawn up each distribution schedule as shown in the attachment on December 24, 2014.

On each distribution date, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The original copy of the payment order against B by the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff (Sacheon District Court 2013 tea117, hereinafter “instant payment order”) is deemed to have been received on November 8, 2013 by B. However, B was in a state of being unable to receive the above written decision because it was actually closed on September 24, 2013 by the party branch.

The original of the above payment order was not legally served.

In addition, the defendant exercised the right to supplement a large amount of 4 billion won, which is claimed by the defendant, and it was not revealed that it was true.

Therefore, since the defendant's claim against B is invalid, each distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the principle of distribution 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 as a false declaration of conspiracy or extinguished as a result of repayment

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is alone.