A. In F dividend procedures, KRW 251,971,979,339 out of the amount of KRW 469,75,94,945 (the subject matter of sale: the Seoul Central District Court deposited money 24690) to be actually distributed on May 21, 2015 (the subject matter of sale: the subject matter of sale) was prepared by the first creditor to the Defendant of the first creditor, and KRW 11,696,278, to the Plaintiff of the first creditor, the first creditor, and KRW 93,443,45,417, to the Plaintiff of the first creditor, the third,745,173, to the Plaintiff of the first creditor having the first creditor, to the Nonparty of the first creditor having the first creditor, and KRW 28,145,59,59, to the Plaintiff of the first creditor creditor, and KRW 35,198,840,00, the distribution schedule was formulated by each of the first creditors to H (hereinafter referred to “the first creditor”).

B. On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiffs appeared on the date of distribution of the above distribution procedure and stated that there was an objection against Plaintiff A’s dividend amounting to KRW 11,564,131, Plaintiff B’s dividend amounting to KRW 92,387,570, Plaintiff C’s 45,039,745, and Plaintiff D’s 27,827,609.

C. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant issued a collection order with the amount of KRW 501,095,890 on the deposit collection right deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 24690 (hereinafter “instant deposit collection right”) pursuant to the Seoul Central District Court’s deposit order, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 3718, 2012, issued by the notary public, Korea Law Firm Han-gu, 2012, against Plaintiff A, C, and Nonparty G, and issued a collection order with the amount of KRW 501,09,890 on the deposit collection right deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 24690 (hereinafter “instant deposit collection right”).

Plaintiff

A, B, C, and Non-Party G were issued a collection order on November 29, 2012, based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na106230, Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2010Na106230, 473 won (Plaintiff A23,260, 409, Plaintiff B185, 830, 869 won, Plaintiff C90, 390, 594, 7, 448, 033 won), with respect to the claim for recovery of the deposit of this case as the executory exemplification of the judgment on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

E. On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff D’s District Court Decision 2013TT 981.