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

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to the distribution procedure case of Busan District Court 2016 another ○○○○○○○○○○○, the said court deleted the dividend amount of KRW 17,91,587 from the distribution schedule prepared on December 28, 2016 and distributes KRW 17,91,587 to the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff holds bonds based on the decision of Busan District Court 2006Gahap ○○○○○○, a default on the payment of the bankruptcy amount.

B. On February 1, 2008, the Defendant issued a notice of KRW 22,522,251 of value-added tax on February 1, 2006 to the BB Construction Co., Ltd.

C. The Construction Co., Ltd. has a rehabilitation claim in KRW 494,436,322 of the facility cost to a rehabilitation debtor-debtor.

D. The Plaintiff was issued a collection order for the claim bond against the BB Construction Co., Ltd. with Busan District Court Seoul East District Court Decision 2007TTB00,000, for the rehabilitation creditors of the BB Construction Co., Ltd., with the claim bond, to the amount of KRW 276,884,670 among the rehabilitation claims against the CB Construction Co., Ltd.

E. On May 15, 2008, the defendant seized the rehabilitation claim against the "CCB Construction General Co., Ltd." in the case of failure to pay the value-added tax corrected and notified by the BB Construction Co., Ltd.

F. On February 19, 2016, in the distribution procedure for the repayment of the rehabilitation debt amount of KRW 21,026,089 to the KCAB Construction Co., Ltd., the Defendant was distributed KRW 3,023,842, and KRW 18,002,247 to D Logistics (hereinafter referred to as “the first distribution procedure”).

G. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D&D (State) to return the amount distributed to the Plaintiff by Busan District Court 2016Da○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

H. The money recovered from the above lawsuit was deposited with the Busan Eastern District Court 2016 Geum○○○○○○○○.

I. On December 28, 2016, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of value-added tax 32,529,550 won in arrears, including the additional dues, and the amount of KRW 17,91,587, the amount available for distribution on the date of distribution of the distribution to Busan District Court Seoul East District Court 2016 another ○○○○○○○○○, which was commenced with respect to the said deposit, to the Defendant who requested the issuance of the increased amount thereof

(j) The Plaintiff attended the above date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount distributed to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-6 evidence, each entry of Eul 1-4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The collection of the dividends received by DD in the initial distribution procedure was made by finding out the fact that the Plaintiff was erroneously distributed, and the Defendant did not raise any objection to DD’s dividend amount and did not take any measure against DD’s dividend amount. With the Plaintiff’s efforts, the Defendant did not have any right to the amount that DD’s distribution was returned to the debtor, which was returned to the debtor, by means of unjust enrichment from D’s distribution.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that national taxes, surcharges, or expenses for disposition on default shall be collected in preference to other public charges and other claims, and the defendant's taxation claims shall take precedence over the plaintiff's claims against BB construction. Therefore, the defendant's dividends to the defendant are legitimate.

3. Determination

Even if DD Logistics (State) collected dividend resources through a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment by raising a problem against the amount distributed by the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the amount so recovered shall go through a distribution procedure again among creditors of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. In addition, since the Defendant’s tax claim, such as the value-added tax, takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s claim, which is a general creditor of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. with respect to the construction BB construction, the total amount available for dividends, within the scope of the Defendant’s tax claim, shall not be deemed unlawful.

4. Conclusion

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