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

A. On July 22, 2008, the Defendant issued a collection order, which was served on the garnishee on July 28, 2008, as the title, the original copy of the decision of performance recommendation in the case of acquisition by transfer money in the court No. 2007Gapo24962 against the debtor B, by the Industrial Bank of Korea and Industrial Bank of Korea No. 7,059,58 of the claimed amount, and issued a collection order. The Defendant was served on the garnishee on July 28, 2008.

B. On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) received the original of the payment order issued against B by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2009 tea226) with the title of execution; (b) issued a seizure order of KRW 4,048,793 on the third debtor’s Bank of Korea and the requested amount; and (c) issued a collection order; and (d) served on the third debtor on June 7, 2013 the collection order.

C. On May 31, 2016, pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the Industrial Bank of Korea deposited KRW 1,216,165 of this Court as KRW 2548 in gold 2016.

This Court distributed to the Defendant the full amount of KRW 1,201,450, excluding KRW 14,886,00 in the A distribution procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s deposit money of the Industrial Bank of Korea shall be distributed proportionally to the Plaintiff and the Defendant in proportion to their claim amount.

A distribution schedule which distributes the full amount to the defendant must be modified as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Execution Act amended in 2011 and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate deposits of not more than KRW 1,500,000 as claims prohibiting seizure.

The deposits of the Industrial Bank of Korea of the debtor B attached in 2013 constituted claims prohibited from seizure of KRW 1,216,165.

An order of seizure in violation of Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Execution Act is null and void due to a violation of compulsory law (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1588, Mar. 24, 1987). Therefore, it is justifiable that a court of execution did not distribute dividends in proportion to the amount of claims of the plaintiff and the defendant and distributes the total amount to the defendant.

The plaintiff in 201.