1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on May 21, 2013 by the Cheongju District Court with respect to the distribution procedure case of the Cheongju Branch Branch Court.

Basic Facts

On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against DM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DM”) seeking the payment of goods with the Seoggu District Court Branch Branch Decision 2012Gahap225, and rendered a judgment on July 20, 2012 that “DM shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 1,093,096,113 won and 20% per annum from June 5, 2012 to the date of complete payment.”

The distribution procedure was initiated for the proceeds of the sale of corporeal movables in the Cheongju District Court, and the distribution was made to the Defendant (Appointed Party), the designated parties, and the Defendants as stated in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff was distributed in KRW 55,771,190.

On the date of open distribution on May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant (Appointed Party), the designated parties, and the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 24, 2013.

The Defendant PSweging Sweging Investment Limited Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) received a payment order from the Daejeon District Court 201Hu880 on October 29, 2012 regarding loans of KRW 855,58,000 against the Korea DM on October 29, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] Defendant P, Q, and R: The remaining Defendants who made a confession are without dispute; the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2; the purport of the entire pleadings is that the Plaintiff made a false claim created in collusion with DM on the Defendant Corporation’s claims; and the head office and Seoul Office of Korea DM deemed to have been served despite having already been closed and served on the Defendant Corporation on the basis of a false person; thus, the amount of dividends of the Defendant Corporation is still without merit; however, it is insufficient to recognize each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointeds, Defendant B, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O.