1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 24, 2008, Suwon District Court C, March 14, 2008, each of the auction procedures was initiated as Suwon District Court D, and each of the above auction procedures was conducted in duplicate.

B. On January 20, 2009, B issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 630 million, and on May 20, 2009, a notarial deed was prepared and issued with respect to the said promissory note.

C. On October 5, 2009, the Plaintiff, based on the original copy of the above notarial deed, received the attachment and assignment order of the claim under the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2009TTT12783 as to the dividend payment claim under B in the above notarial deed.

On October 8, 2009, the above assignment order was served on the defendant, who is the garnishee, and became final and conclusive around that time.

On October 21, 2009, the auction court deposited KRW 630,525,689, including interest, at the Suwon District Court No. 22273, Nov. 26, 2009, on the date of distribution on the date of distribution, the amount of KRW 630,525,689, including the aforementioned interest, was distributed to the “B (the Plaintiff with full right)” on the date of distribution.

E. In the distribution procedure of the Seoul Eastern District Court E (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”), the said court drafted a distribution schedule on August 30, 2012 that distributes KRW 1,163,030 to the head of the Gangnam District Tax Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Defendant’s public official in charge of the Plaintiff’s assertion distributed KRW 1,163,030 to the head of the Gangwon-dong Tax Office in the dividend procedure of this case. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the above amount, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier, B seeks to evade compulsory execution against the creditors even though it did not bear any debt against the Plaintiff.