U. S. P. P. L. L. L. L. L. L.S.

Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yoon Gyeong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

The fixed number of the litigation performers;

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on September 19, 2014, the amount of dividends 54,640,017 won against the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on September 19, 2014 and the plaintiff 54,640,017 won - 2 -

dividend shall be corrected by correction.

A. A. From July 12, 2002, 200, Do Do Do Do Do Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do dong Do Do dong Do Do dong Do Do dong Do Do dong Do Do dong Do Do Do from September 1, 2004 to March 1, 2007, she entered into an agreement to operate Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do dong Do Do Do dong Do Do dong Do Do Do dong Do Do Do Do Do and Do Do Do dong Do Do Do Do Do Do Do her rights and Do Do Do.

B. On July 8, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to acquire the status of 1.7 billion won under the contract on the operation of computer classrooms with 30 or more schools across the country, including the contract described in the above paragraph (a) above, and operated a computer classroom from August 1, 2000 to August 9, 2004, and from August 9, 2004 to December 2004, respectively. Jeonnam-do designated the deposited person as Sora 000 and the Plaintiff on October 25, 2007 as the Seoul Central District Court in order to designate 51,218,980 won as 00 for 2007, with the deposit account under Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant deposit”).

D. In the distribution procedure to the entries in the purport of the claim on the instant deposit, the execution court prepared a distribution schedule by stating that the total amount of KRW 54,640,017 to be actually distributed to the Republic of Korea on September 19, 2014 is distributed to the Republic of Korea (the Gangnam Tax Office in the jurisdiction of Gangwon-do). Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant.

[Ground] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and Jeonnam-do Office of Education's fact-finding results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Jeonnam-do deposited this case on the premise that the Plaintiff was liable for tuition fees due to the operation of the computer classroom from August 8, 2004 to December of the same year. However, since the Plaintiff entered into a contract for business takeover with Soranam-do on July 8, 2004, the Plaintiff directly carried out the business operation of the computer classroom from August 1, 2004, and therefore, Do 000 did not have any claim for tuition fees for Jeonnam-do, and the Plaintiff has any claim for tuition fees for Jeonnam-do. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Do 000 to confirm the claim for payment of deposit fees against Do Do Do Do , and won the judgment (Seoul High Court 2008Gahap121697) on April 3, 2009, the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the dividend payment of this case to Do 3000.

B. Determination

According to the evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff entered into a contract for the takeover of business with Sora 000 on July 8, 2004 and basic facts A, with the content of taking over the contractual status, etc. of Sora 000 on the contract mentioned in paragraph (1) from August 8, 2004 to December 2004, and directly performed the business of operating the computer class from August 2004 to and without the principal's approval on the above contract, and Sora ray media, without the principal's

- 4- The agreement was made that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to hold tuition fees due to the operation of the computer classroom, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Jeonnam-do seeking tuition fees with the Gwangju District Court 2005dan000000, but the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed). The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had the right to receive preferential dividends from the Defendant, even if the Plaintiff directly conducted the business of the computer classroom from August 2004 to December 31 of the same year according to the business takeover agreement.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

Judges Esck-spons