2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

In the case of the Seoul Southern District Court 2015Tagi66 dividend procedure, the court's decision to delete the dividend amount of KRW 7,638,277 against the defendant from the dividend table prepared by the above court on March 27, 2015, and to rectify it to distribute it to the plaintiff (the appointed party; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff").

A. On February 11, 2010, the Plaintiff and the designated parties filed a lawsuit against the Suwon District Court for wage claim of 2009da18937 against BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB”), and on February 11, 2010, the said court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 16,229,970 won, 25,233,160 won, and 20% interest per annum from July 16, 2009 to the date of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive.

B. The Plaintiff and the designated person seized the shares of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the shares of the instant association members”) based on the investment certificates held by BB against CCC as Seoul Southern District Court 201TT26845, based on the original copy of the said judgment. In this case, the claimed amount was KRW 23,618,415 (i.e., wages and retirement allowances of KRW 16,229,970) + (i.e., delay damages of KRW 7,352,265 per annum from July 16, 2009 to November 20, 2011 + enforcement expenses of KRW 36,180), KRW 36,700,09 (i.e., wages and retirement allowances of KRW 25,23,160) + damages for delay from July 16, 2009 to KRW 105,1005 per annum 30,1501,201.

C. On August 27, 2009, the Defendant attached the instant member shares to preserve national tax claims in arrears by BB, and notified it to CCC on August 28, 200, and the specific amount of seizure is KRW 25,397,580 as follows:

Deadline for payment

Amount in arrears

Jinay

Earned income tax

March 31, 2009

(Notice of Source of July 2008)

5,887,440 won

Additional Dues

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2008

(Scheduled Notice of July 2008)

17,754,220 won

Value-added Tax

March 31, 2009

(7) Notice of a periodical installment of July 2008

1,755,920 won

Total

25,397,580 won

D. On March 12, 2015, Seoul Southern District Court 2014TTT22804, the Plaintiff and the designated parties filed an application for the order to sell the shares of the instant association members. On March 12, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim for the delivery of the amount in arrears of national taxes KRW 36,924,250 in the distribution procedure under the Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2015TTT District Court 2015TTT66. The specific claim amount is as follows.

Deadline for payment

Amount in arrears

Jinay

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2008

(2) Scheduled notice of December 2008

2,292,970 won

Additional dues, including the above attached customs amount, separately from the customs amount

Value-added Tax

September 30, 2009

(3) Notice of September 1, 2009

21,065,510 won

Value-added Tax

March 31, 2012

(Scheduled Notice of July 2008)

3,031,900 won

Value-added Tax

September 30, 2012

(3) Notice of 9. 1. 201

2,808,830 won

Value-added Tax

January 31, 2013

(1) Occasional notice of 2013

5,409,370 won

Value-added Tax

April 30, 2013

(4) Notice of source portion 2013

2,315,670 won

Total

36,924,250 won

E. On March 27, 2015, the Seoul Southern District Court deducted the enforcement cost from the proceeds from the sale of shares held by the members of the instant case, and distributed KRW 41,463,130 (=Plaintiff 16,229,970 + KRW 25,233,160 + 25,233,160) to the Defendant who is an execution creditor.

Each description of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to seize the shares of the members of the instant case as being indicated on the investment certificate, they shall possess the investment certificate pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 233 of the Civil Execution Act, and Article 38 of the National Tax Collection Act. While the Plaintiff and the designated parties possess the investment certificate through the execution officer, the Defendant’s seizure has no effect since the Defendant did not possess the investment certificate in addition to the notification of seizure, and the amount to be distributed falls short of the amount of the seized claim of the Plaintiff

B. Determination

If the defendant is to become a creditor entitled to a distribution, the plaintiff, the selected person and the creditor who competes with the seizure.

Any creditor who has an executory exemplification or an executory exemplification of the right to preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, or other Acts and subordinate statutes, and has a legitimate demand for distribution to the court.

1) Whether the defendant is a concurrent obligee of seizure

In full view of the following relevant provisions, the seizure of the shares of the instant association members shall be carried out by a tax official by deducting the investment certificates, which are securities, from BBB, the executing debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1456, Jan. 20, 1987). The Defendant merely notified the third debtor of the seizure regarding the shares of the instant association members, but did not clearly dispute the fact that the Defendant did not possess the securities. Accordingly, the Defendant’s seizure order has no validity.

Article 59 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Transfer, etc. of Shares) (4) Attachment or provisional attachment of shares in a mutual-aid association conducted in accordance with civil execution procedures or the procedures for disposition on default of national taxes, etc. shall be made by means of seizure or provisional attachment of debt payable

○ Seizure of bills, checks, and other security claims prohibited from any endorsement, which are those transferable by endorsement under Article 233 of the Civil Execution Act, shall be effected by an execution officer under an order of seizure issued by a court for seizure.

○ Attachment of securities under Article 38 of the National Tax Collection Act (Seizure of Movables and Securities) shall be possessed by a tax official.

2) Whether the defendant is a legitimate creditor of demand for distribution

On the other hand, a request for delivery under Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act is to seek a distribution of delinquent national taxes by joining a procedure for compulsory realization that is already in progress by the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da22311, Nov. 27, 2001). The fact that the defendant requested a delivery of KRW 36,924,250,00 to the executing court on March 12, 2015 is recognized as above. Thus, even if the execution court distributed dividends to the defendant as the execution creditor, the defendant shall be deemed as a legitimate demand for distribution.

Therefore, the execution court shall distribute the wages and retirement allowances of the plaintiff and the selected parties in the priority order between the plaintiff, the selected parties, and the defendant. However, the claims for delay damages are not acknowledged as the priority repayment right (see Supreme Court Order 99Ma5143, Feb. 12, 2000). Thus, the claims for delay damages of the plaintiff and the selected parties shall be deemed as general claims without the priority repayment right, and shall be deemed as subordinate to the defendant's claims.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant distribution schedule was lawfully prepared.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.