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

Cheong-gu Office

Done on May 15, 2018 by the above court with respect to the distribution procedure case of Seoul0 District Court 2018 Tata 000

Of the distribution schedule, the amount of 000 '00' for the defendant 00 's 's '000' is '0', '00 '00' for the defendant's Republic of Korea '0', and '0' for the plaintiff 's 00 won, respectively.

A. In the case of an application for provisional seizure against claim No. 200 district court 2015Kadan000 against the Plaintiff, the company (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party company”) received the provisional seizure against the Plaintiff on August 19, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “the provisional seizure order of this case”) from the Seoul 00 district court 200 district court 2000 district court 2000 district 200 district 200 district 200 district 200 district 200 district 200 district 200 district 200 district 200 district c

B. On August 24, 2016, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City 00 seized on August 24, 2016, the amount equivalent to KRW 000 of the amount of delinquent tax out of the Plaintiff’s deposit recovery and payment claims (a notification of attachment has been issued to the Seoul 00 District Court on August 30, 2016) as the creditor holding the national tax claim against the Plaintiff, and on March 6, 2018, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City 00 was seized on March 6, 2018 as to the Plaintiff’s right to claim the deposit payment in relation to the instant deposit in order to collect delinquent taxes (a notification of attachment has been completed with the Seoul 0 District Court on March 9, 2018).

C. Meanwhile, on October 5, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the provisional attachment order of this case was revoked by Seoul 00 District Court 2016Kadan00 on October 5, 2016, and the costs of lawsuit was determined by the non-party company (hereinafter “decision of revocation of provisional attachment”). The Plaintiff filed an application for the determination of the amount of litigation costs according to the said decision and received the determination of the amount of litigation costs against the non-party company as Seoul 00 District Court 2016Kadan00 on March 10, 2017, and the Plaintiff received the said determination of the amount of litigation costs, based on the Seoul 200 District Court 2016Kadan00 on February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff received the said decision of revocation of provisional attachment and collection order (hereinafter “the attachment and collection order”) with the Seoul 00 District Court 200,000 won on the deposit money of this case from the non-party company 200,2008.7.

D. The deposit officer of the Seoul 00 District Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the deposit of this case on the grounds that there exists competition between Defendant, Seoul, and the seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea and the seizure of this case, the seizure and collection order of this case, and the cancellation of the above security (right holder’s security right) regarding KRW 00 among the deposit of this case. After the commencement of the distribution procedure for the deposit under the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2018TTO00, on May 15, 2018, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 00 to Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City 00 and KRW 00 to the Defendant Republic of Korea on the date of distribution, and the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on May 18, 2018.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3-2, Eul evidence 1 to 4-2

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The assertion

1) The plaintiff asserts that the right of the plaintiff with respect to the deposit of this case based on the collection order and the seizure and collection order of this case is exercised by the plaintiff as the collection right holder of the non-party company's right to claim the deposit of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's right to claim the deposit of this case cannot be seized. The defendant's seizure is invalid as the plaintiff's right to claim the deposit of this case, or the seizure does not affect the plaintiff's right to claim the deposit of this case (in particular, the seizure of the defendant Republic of Korea is specified as the right to claim the deposit of this case). The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule should be revised by reducing the amount of the

2) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the instant deposit based on the collection order and seizure of the instant claim is merely a method by which the Plaintiff, the holder of the security right to the instant deposit, exercised the security right. As such, the Defendants’ claim that the seizure is invalid as it pertains to the claim for the recovery of the deposit.

B. Determination

1) First of all, the deposit money provided by the court order for provisional seizure is a security for the obligor’s damage caused by provisional seizure (Article 280 of the Civil Execution Act). Litigation costs relating to cases of objection to provisional seizure or revocation are included in the scope of damage guaranteed by the said deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2012Ma2061, Feb. 7, 2013). In the next judicial deposit, a person holding a right to security has the same right as the pledgee with respect to the security. In cases where a person holding a right to security claims for the recovery of the deposit after the seizure of the right to claim for recovery of the deposit and the order for collection or the order for determination of cancellation is issued after the order for collection is issued, the said person holding the right to security is deemed to have the right to claim the recovery of the deposit money as the execution right of the secured claim, and even in such cases, it is reasonable to deem that the person holding the right to claim the recovery of the deposit has the same right as the pledgee’s right to claim for payment of the deposit (see, etc.).

2) According to the above legal principles, the litigation costs of the case of the decision to revoke provisional seizure of this case include the scope of damages secured by the deposited money, which is a judicial security deposit. Next, with the Plaintiff’s claim based on the decision to determine the amount of the above litigation costs, the Plaintiff’s claim for the seizure and collection order against KRW 00 of the non-party company’s claim to recover the deposited money of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of security against KRW 00 of the deposited money as the creditor of collection and the secured party to the deposited money of this case, and the claim for the payment of the deposited money of this case made by the Plaintiff as the secured party to the deposited money of this case should be deemed as the execution method of the security right of this case. In addition, in light of the period of seizure of the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s ability to collect the deposited money of this case was not attached. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s claim to collect the deposited money of this case cannot be deemed as having exercised the security right of this case without compensation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.