2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on June 1, 2010, the amount of 1,112,172,480 won against the defendant, 707,133,590 won, and the amount of 3,979,192,837 won against the plaintiff shall be corrected to 4,384,231,727 won, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended as follows. With respect to the auction of real estate in Busan District Court No. 22500, 2009, Busan District Court No. 20542, Jun. 1, 2010, the dividend amount of KRW 1,112,172,480 against the defendant shall be KRW 1,042,205,130, and the dividend amount of KRW 3,979,192,837 won against the plaintiff shall be corrected as KRW 4,049,160,187, respectively.

As a lawsuit in this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the distribution schedule should be revised by reducing the total amount of KRW 405,071,540 (hereinafter “the increased amount”) of KRW 69,967,350 (hereinafter “the increased amount”) of KRW 69,967,350 (hereinafter “the increased amount”) from among the total amount of KRW 1,12,172,480 (hereinafter “the increased amount”) to the Defendant of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on June 1, 2010, which was 405,038,89,000 (hereinafter “the property tax in this case, etc.”) and the property tax, etc. claimed for additional delivery after the final date of demand for distribution, which was 335,071,540 (hereinafter “the increased amount”) and distributed to the Plaintiff. The court of first instance accepted all the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Defendant appealed the increased amount only for this case, and thus excluded from the scope of the property tax in this case.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is used for this case is as follows: "The plaintiff transferred all of the claims held by the Joint Asset Management Corporation on September 14, 2010, which was after the closing of argument in the first instance trial, to the Intervenor on September 29, 2010, which was after the pronouncement of the first instance trial, and the Joint Asset Management Corporation transferred all of the above claims to the Intervenor on September 29, 2010, which was after the pronouncement of the first instance trial, and completed the notification of the transfer; accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff in the first instance trial; and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff at the trial." The reason for the judgment on the property tax, etc. of this case excluded from the scope of the trial in the first instance trial (from the first to the first to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the day) is the same as the reasons for the judgment in the first instance trial, and thus, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)