1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on April 27, 2016 by the said court with respect to the distribution procedure C of the Daegu District Court Ansan Branch C.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements Nos. 1 and 2, as a whole.

On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff received a collection order for KRW 50 million from among the goods payment claims against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) from the Defendant Company D (hereinafter “D”) (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014j6372), under the Daegu District Court-dong Branch Branch 2015TT2318, and issued a collection order for KRW 50 million from among the goods payment claims against D E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “foreign Co., Ltd.”), and the above seizure and collection order was served on the non-party company on November 23, 2015.

B. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the Defendant’s seizure and collection order”) against the Defendant’s D (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2016Tari209 against D’s non-party company as to KRW 135,634,560, and the Defendant’s seizure and collection order was served on the non-party company on February 5, 2016.

C. The non-party company deposited KRW 15,315,30 of the price of the goods to D under the Daegu District Court No. 87 of the Daegu District Court, on the ground that the seizure and collection order of the plaintiff and the defendant competes with each other. On April 27, 2016, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 4,122,157 of the amount to be actually distributed out of KRW 15,304,297 of the amount to be actually distributed on the distribution date set for the distribution procedure (C) to the plaintiff (the first collection authority), 11,182,140 of the amount to be distributed to the defendant (the first collection authority) (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

On the other hand, the plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution and stated that he raised an objection to the whole amount of distribution to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, which are significant in this court or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:

1) Defendant’s written application for payment order ( December 11, 2015).