1. On December 26, 2016, the distribution procedure formulated in the distribution procedure for the Goyang District Court Goyang Branch C, against the plaintiff in the distribution schedule prepared by the Goyang Branch C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The principal of the judgment that the Plaintiff is liable to pay according to the Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na16554 (Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap53818) against the Plaintiff was KRW 27,838,709.

D’s creditor Etel management body served on the Plaintiff on March 11, 2016, the Busan District Court 2016TTT 2016T 4490 and the collection order was served on the Plaintiff on the third debtor. On June 27, 2016, D also served on the enforcement title for the attachment of the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables as the enforcement title, and on July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the principal and interest and the execution cost of the judgment under Busan District Court 2016T 6275.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant followed the enforcement procedure as set forth in the following sub-paragraph (c).

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s order of seizure and collection (1) of the claim (2016Kadan129 decided on the provisional seizure of the claim (the obligor: D, the amount claimed: 16,073,589 won) (2) the seizure and collection order (the execution right: the execution right) of the claim to transfer the provisional seizure of the 2016 Goyang-gu District Court of the Republic of Korea dated October 28, 2016 to the provisional seizure of the provisional seizure (the execution right: the execution recommendation decision and the claim amount determined on September 24, 2016 for the return of long-term repair appropriations for long-term repair as of August 24, 2016: 16: 16,284,967 won).

C. (1) The Defendant’s order of seizure and collection (1) on September 27, 2016, the authentic deed No. 180 of notarial deed No. 2016, Sept. 27, 2016 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) (2) October 6, 2016, Busan District Court Decision No. 2016Kadan53160 (debtor: D and claim amount: 60 million won) (3) on the provisional seizure of claims (the debtor: November 2, 2016, Busan District Court 2016TT 20820) (the execution right of this case: the authentic deed of this case, the claim amount of 60 million won) is transferred to the original seizure.

D. As to the remainder of the dividends distributed to the Etel Etel management body, the U.S. District Court held that the seizure between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is competition.