The increased amount is above the secured claim of the right to collateral security.

Aggravated increase is above the secured claim of the right to collateral security.

Incheon District Court-2015-Na-59184

The plaintiff is eligible to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and the plaintiff is actually entitled to receive dividends.

As to whether a right exists is a true creditor or not, the defendant is a matter of determination on the merits.

The defense prior to the merits is without merit without further review.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The assertion

- 4-

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Korea Asset Management Corporation's vicarious public sale from Samsung director's office in arrears of national taxes

In the relevant public sale proceeding conducted upon request by Samsung Director, the Head of Samsung District Tax Office has the legal standing than the instant collateral security.

Of the national taxes of this case prior to the date, KRW 457,635,734 [=43,876,160]

The principal tax of the Do income tax) + 430,380 won ( principal tax of the securities transaction tax) + 13,316,284 won (additional charges of capital gains tax) +

12,910 won (additional dues on securities transaction tax) has been acquired, and furthermore, the national tax of this case has been in arrears.

Since the principal tax and the additional charges were collected in entirety, the national tax of this case against the defendant's PP

The claim equivalent to principal tax and additional dues was extinguished. The Defendant’s remaining national tax out of the national tax of this case

Since the increased additional charges are subordinate to the instant collateral security, the statutory date is ultimately subordinate to the Defendant.

The amount of dividends 69,142,949 won shall be corrected to be distributed to the plaintiff.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the claim and collateral security against the TPP from the W Bank

B. Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the notice of assignment of claims to the debtor PP has been delivered, the court

No intentional bond can be set up against the obligor PP and the Defendant.

such a claim and collateral security acquisition and notification of assignment of claims are recognized.

Even if the Plaintiff acquired a claim against the PP and enforced collection of the PP-owned real estate after acquiring the claim against the PP.

Since part of the amount of the claim was repaid through conduct, the actual amount of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

shall not extend to any equivalent amount.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for setting up against the Plaintiff by acquiring bonds and collateral security

1) 13,316,284 won 443,876,160 x (3/100), fractional forest, hereinafter the same shall apply.

- 5-

Doctrine, Gap evidence 15 to 19, including dump numbers

C. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff and the W Bank on September 26, 2013, and the United Nations Asset Management Co., Ltd. shall be Kim.

The Plaintiff entered into an asset acquisition agreement with W Bank, FF Company, and transferee as to the claim and collateral security against A and the seller, and entered into an asset acquisition agreement with the Plaintiff.

Pursuant to the laws governing W Bank's loans to the PP and rights incidental thereto;

W Bank shall take over all the facts, on the other hand, on September 27, 2013 and September 30, 2013.

PP's domicile, ' XX', the quantity of claims

The Do notice was sent by content-certified mail, and the W Bank and the Plaintiff on October 7, 2013

It is recognized that the assignment of claims is publicly announced in the arche newsletter and the nationwide newspaper, and the fact of such recognition is recognized.

According to the above, the Plaintiff acquired the instant claim in succession from the World Bank and acquired it from the World Asset-Backed Securitization

Article 7 of the Act on the Transfer of Claim is considered to meet the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claim.

(2) Determination as to the legal date of the national tax of this case

The court's explanation about this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be in accordance with Article 3 of the Reasons therefor.

(a) As it is the same as the statement in this paragraph, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(3) The national tax of this case and the right to collateral security of this case

The court's explanation about this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be in accordance with Article 3 of the Reasons therefor.

(b) accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is,

(4) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion on the extinguishment of claim

In the relevant public sale procedure, there was a distribution of the proceeds of the public sale to the Samsung director of the tax office, and the plaintiff was the above distribution.

Part exceeding 457,635,734 won in an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a separate disposition

The facts of this cancellation are as seen earlier, and the total amount of principal tax and additional dues among the national taxes of this case.

- - Other

457,635,734 won for the sole reason that there was a distribution of the public auction proceeds amounting to the above amount.

Although the pertinent part of the national tax against PP cannot be deemed to have extinguished, on the other hand, the claim cannot be deemed to have been extinguished.

After the judgment of the first instance court of this case, the State of this case is prior to the legal date than the right to collateral security of this case.

The fact that the total amount of principal tax and additional dues was received and processed in all amount of KRW 457,635,734 was also also seen earlier.

As such, in the end, the principal tax and the additional charges among the national taxes of this case against the defendant's PP are collected.

Two have ceased to exist.

(5) Determination on the amount of the plaintiff's claim

According to Gap evidence Nos. 20 through 23, the plaintiff's PP as of March 17, 2016

The remaining amount of the credit for the principal was the total of KRW 296,580,109, interest KRW 90,207,078, and KRW 386,787,187.

In fact, the plaintiff was paid a national tax refund due to a mistake in distribution order from the Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office 52,068,390

Any remainder of the Plaintiff’s PP at the time of March 19, 2016 after receiving the source and appropriating it for interest.

Recognizing the fact that the sum of the amount of the power shall be the sum of KRW 296,580,109 and interest KRW 38,317,449 and KRW 334,89,897,558

Thus, according to this, the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim exceeds KRW 69,142,949, which is the amount of the claim against the Defendant.

Clearly,

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, there are principal and additional claims among the national taxes of this case against the defendant's PP.

Since the instant distribution schedule prepared on the premise that it is unfair, the distribution schedule of this case against the defendant is set out in the instant distribution schedule.

Amounting to KRW 69,142,949, and the amounting to KRW 69,142,949, respectively, shall be adjusted to KRW 69,142,949.

(c)

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the conclusion of this case is different.

- - Other

The judgment of the first instance court is unfair, so it is so revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition.

00 Limited Liability Company

Korea

oly 2016.05.10

2016.05.24

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on July 16, 2014 with respect to the case of applying for an auction of the sale of real estate at Incheon District Court 2013 Mata 44647, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be KRW 69,142,949, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 69,142,949, respectively.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Basic facts

The court's reasoning for this part is that "the plaintiff sought delivery of principal tax" No. 14-15 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the defendant requested delivery of principal tax", "the plaintiff acquired the claim and the collateral security right from WT bank in accordance with the contract on the transfer and acceptance of the claim sales contract and the claim sales contract," "the plaintiff acquired the claim and the collateral security right." The third part 20 of the distribution schedule "the distribution schedule" (hereinafter "the distribution schedule of this case") is "the distribution schedule of this case." The third part 21 of the judgment of the first instance 4 was "the plaintiff received the claim and the collateral security right of 2015Nu5462 of the judgment of the court of first instance", and the second part of the judgment of the Seoul High Court 2015Nu54652 of the judgment of the first instance 4 and the second part of the judgment of the court 2015Da54652 of the judgment of the first instance 2015.15.15.27.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The assertion

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff is not qualified as the plaintiff in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff acquired the claims and right to collateral against the TPP from the WT, or that the notification of assignment of claims to the TPP has been received, and that the plaintiff's claim cannot be asserted against the debtor,

B. Determination

However, a person qualified as a plaintiff in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is a creditor against an executory debtor who has lawfully made a demand for distribution by the date of completion of the demand for distribution, and is a creditor or an obligor who has made an objection to the distribution schedule as an substantive objection to the distribution schedule by attending the date of distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da63155, Sept. 4, 2002). As seen earlier, as long as the plaintiff appeared in the auction procedure of this case as a mortgagee on the date of distribution and raised an objection as to the distribution schedule, the plaintiff