1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant remitted to Nonparty C KRW 50 million on May 19, 2015, KRW 50 million on May 2015, KRW 50 million on May 20, 2015, and KRW 70 million on June 3, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff received the Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan801869, which was the debtor as C, and the said C deposited KRW 405,737,705 on March 8, 2016 with the Seoul Central District Court 5436, supra.

C. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant and the above C drafted a notarial deed stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 150 million to C on May 19, 2015, and C borrowed it.” Based on the said notarial deed, the Defendant was issued a seizure and collection order for the instant C’s deposit refund claim as the District Court 2017TTT4398.

On September 21, 2017, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 304,684,790 to the Plaintiff and the Defendant KRW 101,561,597 to the Plaintiff on September 21, 2017, which made the said deposit the object of sale as the object of sale. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the Defendant’s amount of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, fact-finding results on the banks of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the intent of the Plaintiff’s assertion is in collusion with the Defendant and the said C, the amount of dividends against the Defendant should be deleted and distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff must prove the facts constituting the grounds for objection against distribution. As such, the obligee who filed an objection against distribution by asserting that the other party’s claim is disguised, bears the burden of proof as to such assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178, Nov. 14, 1997). The circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff or the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s loan claim against the said C as false claims.