The plaintiff A and B did not appear on the date of distribution according to the evidence No. 4, and according to the record No. 4, the plaintiff A and B did not appear on the date of distribution, and F appeared on the date of distribution, but it can be recognized that the plaintiff's agent qualification as the whole creditor was stated as having raised an objection to the defendant's dividends. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

“Around February 2014, 2014” under the 7th 3rd 7th 7th 7th 7th 201, and the 8th 9th 8th 9.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff Company received a provisional attachment order of KRW 5,292,570 from the surplus funds that the Plaintiff Company would incur to maintain (in addition to the instant claim attachment and assignment order, the Plaintiff Company received from the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Kadan982, March 17, 2014, as to the claim amount of KRW 5,292,570 from the surplus funds that the Plaintiff Company would incur to the partnership in the above auction procedure, and the amount of the claim amount of provisional attachment is determined and the payment order became final and conclusive, and thus, the claim amount of provisional attachment should be distributed to the Plaintiff Company. However, the Plaintiff Company raised an objection against the Defendant’s amount of dividends in the position of all creditors, as seen earlier. Meanwhile, the Defendant Company’s provisional attachment obligee with respect to surplus funds could not seek correction of the distribution schedule as it distributes surplus funds directly to it, and thus, the Plaintiff Company’s aforementioned assertion is identical to the written judgment of the first instance court, except as otherwise stated

2. If so, the lawsuit of this case by plaintiffs A and B is unlawful and dismissed respectively, and the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiff company is dismissed.