A. D An application for a compulsory auction of real estate and machinery, apparatus, etc., such as E in Seopopo City E in Seopopo City owned by Jeju Environment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Jeju Environment”), was issued a decision to commence the auction, and C overlapping auction procedure was conducted.

B. On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared a written claim for the delivery of value-added tax of KRW 19,422,850 in arrears for the Jeju Environment; (b) sent the said auction court by registered mail on March 25, 2013; and (c) on March 28, 2013, the said written claim for the delivery reached the said auction court on March 28, 2013, prior to the date of demand for distribution (e.g., May 31, 2013).

C. However, the said auction court omitted the above request for delivery and excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution obligee. Accordingly, when allocating the amount of KRW 685,854,601 to be actually distributed on the open date of distribution on February 7, 2014, the said auction court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the remaining amount to the Defendant, etc., who is the priority obligee, the creditor of wages, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, etc., and the Plaintiff’s agentF raised an objection against the Defendant’s amount of KRW 6,414,878, etc. out of the amount of dividends.

【Ground for recognition】 Facts that the Defendant did not clearly dispute (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act), or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As long as the Plaintiff sent a written request for delivery within the final date for demand for distribution and made it reached the auction court, as such, the Plaintiff is deemed to have made a lawful request for delivery. Since it is evident that the Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends prior to the Defendant, who is a general creditor, as a tax payer, as well as the said distribution schedule made without excluding the Plaintiff, it shall be corrected in an unlawful

Therefore, among the defendant's dividends, KRW 6,414,878, which the plaintiff seeks, should be distributed to the plaintiff.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.