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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on May 12, 2014, the amount of 902,434 won for the defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the Gu Office District Court 2013, the amount of dividends of 902,434 won for the defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on May 12, 2014, the amount of dividends of 982,49 won for the defendant 1, the amount of dividends of 35,765,554 won for the defendant ○○○○○○ and the amount of dividends of 3,57,722 won for the defendant △△○○○○○

A. On April 26, 2012, KimA filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and SouthB as Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court 201Gau △△△△△△△△, and received a favorable judgment from the said court that rendered a declaration of provisional execution.

B. On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff and NamB filed an appeal with the Daejeon High Court 2012Na○○○○○○○, and the same court filed an application with the same court for the suspension of compulsory execution. On the same day, the said court deposited KRW 100,000,000 with the Plaintiff and NamB as collateral for KimA on May 30, 2012, on the condition that the Plaintiff and NamB deposited KRW 100,000,000 at the time of the judgment of the said appellate court. On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s husband, the husband, and on the same day, deposited KRW 10,00,000 for KimA as the deposit for the suspension of compulsory execution with the Plaintiff and NamB as the joint principal deposit ( Daejeon District Court 203594,000,000,000).

D. The Daejeon High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal filed by the Plaintiff and SouthB in the appellate court No. 2012Na2215, and the said judgment became final and conclusive through the final appeal.

E. As Suwon District Court 2013TTT2368, Kim Jong-A received a collection order against the Plaintiff and NamB’s right to claim the collection of the instant deposit against the Republic of Korea. In addition, around May 9, 2013 in the case of the Defendant Seosung-si, the Defendant in the case of the Republic of Korea (Additional Income Tax-1336) was subject to the collection order, and around September 10, 2013 in the case of the Defendant, the Defendant in the Republic of Korea (competent: budget tax revenue) around October 2013 in the case of the Defendant in the case of the Republic of Korea (competent: budget revenue) and around October 8, 2013 in the case of the Defendant in the case of each southB on the tax claim against each southB on October 8, 2013.

F. As seen above, the seizure procedure began to be established by Suwon District Court 2013ta ○○○○○○○, and on May 12, 2014, a distribution schedule was formulated with the content of distributing KRW 56,556,483 to KimA, KRW 902,434 to Defendant ○○ Si, KRW 902,434 to Defendant ○○○○, KRW 982,49 to Seosung (Additional Income Tax and KRW 11336), KRW 35,765,54 to Defendant Republic of Korea, and KRW 35,57,72 to Defendant △△△△△△, respectively, to distribute KRW 3,577,72 to Defendant △△△△△ (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-3, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 4-2, and Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff contributed the entire amount, the claim for recovery of the instant deposit is entirely vested in the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that it belongs to the remainingB. Therefore, the seizure against the Defendants’ claim for recovery of the instant deposit based on the tax claim against the remaining transfer is null and void. As such, the instant dividend table should be corrected to delete all the dividend amount to the Defendants.

B. Determination

The fact that the Plaintiff contributed the entire amount of the instant deposit, however, is deemed to hold a claim for recovery of deposit regardless of whether the deposit was actually contributed to the deposit. Since the fact that the remaining B entered as the joint deposit holder for the instant deposit is as seen earlier, the remainingB shall have the right to claim recovery of the instant deposit, as such, and therefore, the remainingB shall have the right to claim recovery of the instant deposit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the premise that the remaining BB did not have the right to claim recovery of the instant deposit is no longer reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.