2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Red○○ is borne by Defendant Red○. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Defendant Republic of Korea is divided into three parts, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff, and the same Defendant.

A. On June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff (formerly, ○○○○○○○○○○ Bank) concluded a mortgage agreement on each of the real estate listed in the separate list owned by it (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). On June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage agreement with ○○○○ District Court’s ○○○○○ Registry on each of the instant real estate listed in the separate list owned by it (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage agreement on each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with ○○○○○○○ Family Court’s ○○○○○○○○○○○ Family Court’s receipt of 13952 on each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage creation agreement on each of the instant collateral loans, credit amounting to KRW 1,200,000,000 from June 208, 2004.

B. However, as ○○○○○ Shipbuilding delayed the repayment of principal and interest of each of the instant real estate due to aggravation of financial standing, the decision of voluntary auction was rendered on August 12, 2005 by ○○○○○, a subordinate mortgagee, with respect to each of the instant real estate, at the request of the Plaintiff, on August 12, 2005. Thereafter, upon the Plaintiff’s application based on the instant right to collateral security, the decision of double auction was rendered on January 12, 2006 at 2006, around 2006, and the instant auction procedure was in progress. Moreover, with respect to forest land listed in the attached list 1 among the instant real estate, separate from the instant auction procedure, the public auction procedure at the request of the head of ○○○○ Tax Office (hereinafter “the auction procedure”).

C. Meanwhile, ○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. awarded a contract for the electrical construction of the buildings listed in the attached Table 3, which was newly built on the site listed in the attached Table 2, to an electric facility company, “○○○○○ Fire,” with the construction cost of KRW 10,80,000. Defendant Hong○ Construction Co., Ltd, an employee of ○○○○○○ Fire, was in charge of the electrical construction with the same employee, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○, and the instant auction procedure, asserting that ○○○○○ Co., Ltd, the employee of ○○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd, was the one who was the employee of the instant ○○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and demanded the distribution of KRW 10,80,000 in total, by asserting that ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., who was the wage obligee for the instant construction procedure.

D. In addition, around December 2006, the Korea Asset Management Corporation sold KRW 410,00,00 the forest land listed in the separate sheet No. 410,00,000 in the instant public sale procedure conducted by the Korea Asset Management Corporation. The head of ○○○ Tax Office requested the issuance of KRW 686,415,460 in total in the relevant public sale procedure, and received the allocation of KRW 105,306,420 in total (including additional taxes, but only part of the bonds were distributed for the 20407-531 corporate tax, on the ground that the amount of KRW 9,664,8410 in total was erroneously distributed to the National Pension Management Corporation at the request of the National Pension Management Corporation, 106,410 in the relevant public sale procedure, and eventually, the amount of KRW 105,61,640 in the amount of KRW 16,410 in the amount of KRW 686,410 in the amount of tax payment.

E. In addition, the real estate listed in the separate list 2, 3 was sold at KRW 881,00,000 in the auction procedure of this case around July 2007, and around KRW 885,318,25 in total, including the sales price and interest thereon, KRW 4,318,255 in total, and KRW 874,567,625 in the amount to be actually distributed, which remains after deducting KRW 4,318,255 in actual dividends, and KRW 874,567,625 in the first order, and KRW 3,00,000 in the Defendant Hong Hong and Lee ○○ who claimed as wage creditors for ○○○ Shipbuilding, and KRW 4,80,000 in total, KRW 10,80,000 in the second order, KRW 3,041,410 in the second order, and KRW 3616,475 in the second order in the second order in 2,361,4750.

F. On October 30, 2007, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of the instant distribution, and raised an objection to the entire amount distributed to the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on November 5, 2007, within seven days thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] A. Each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Contents of the assertion;

In the case of Defendant Red ○○, even though he was merely a person who received a contract for or subcontracted for electrical construction from ○○○○ Shipbuilding and is not an employee belonging to ○○○○○○○ Shipbuilding, the instant dividend table was prepared on the premise that he is the best wage obligee, and in the case of Defendant Republic of Korea, despite the fact that ○○○○○○○ had already been allocated the total amount of the three tax claims in the public auction procedure for forest land listed in the attached Table 1 that ○○○○○ had run by the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the instant dividend table was prepared as it was deemed to have been received double dividends in the instant auction procedure, and thus, the instant dividend table should be revised by eliminating all the dividend amounts to the Defendants and distributing them to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) Claim against Defendant Red○○

Judgment by public notice: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act

(2) Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

According to the above facts, although the head of ○○ Tax Office was allocated part of the three tax claims of this case in the auction procedure of this case, the distribution schedule was prepared to receive 129,756,170 won including 95,641,610 won already distributed in the auction procedure of this case, and therefore, the portion of 34,114,560 won excluding the amount of 95,641,610 won distributed twice to the Republic of Korea 129,756,170 won, excluding the amount of 129,756,641,610 won, is justifiable, but the remaining amount of 95,641,610 won shall be distributed to the Plaintiff.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, among the instant distribution schedule, the amount of 3,00,000 won for Defendant Red ○○ is KRW 0,00,000, and the amount of 129,756,170 won for Defendant Republic of Korea is KRW 34,114,560 ( KRW 129,756,170-95,641,610), and the amount of 729,646,415 won for Plaintiff’s dividends is 828,28,025 won ( KRW 729,646,415 + + + KRW 3,000,000 + KRW 95,641,610).

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Hong○ is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is accepted on the ground of its reasoning within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed on the ground of its ground. It is so decided as per Disposition.