It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had a right to receive additional dividends as a joint security holder for the entire building of this case.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff has a right to receive additional dividends as a joint security holder for the entire building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Single 97051 Demurrer against the distribution

AAA 14th Asset Securitization Specialized Company

1. The Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Gold Affairs Office);

June 26, 2013

August 14, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

"OOO directors of the dividend for the defendant's Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's gold affairs") among the dividend table prepared on November 15, 2012 prepared by the above court with respect to the auction of the real estate rent case of Busan District Court 201 OOOOO, the dividend OO directors of the defendant's Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant Geum-gu Office"), the dividend OO directors of the plaintiff's dividends to the defendant's Republic of Korea, the dividend payments of the plaintiff to the plaintiff are distributed to OOO directors, respectively."

1. Basic facts

"A. On August 6, 2007, CCC bank entered into a separate mortgage agreement with BB on the condition that it comprehensively guarantees the present and future debts owed by BB to CCC bank within the scope of the maximum debt amount of the mortgage. On the same day, CCC bank entered into the auction procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the auction procedure") with respect to each of the instant buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the instant buildings") with respect to OO-Gu No. 177-1 B B B B B, and 101, 101, 1201, 1401, 1401, and 1401 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant building") with respect to each of the instant buildings, it completed the auction procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the auction procedure of this case"), and the Busan District Court, upon application from CCC bank, had the right to seize the pertinent amount of KRW 201,29245,000,0000,000 among the auction procedure of this case to the Plaintiff.

D. Specific dividends under each subparagraph of the instant buildings are set out in the following table:

See Table 3 of the Court Decision

E. The Plaintiff, who appeared on the date of distribution, stated their respective objections against the OOO members among the total amount of dividends on the Defendant’s gold bullion and the dividends against Defendant Geum-gu Office. On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 7, 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as a joint security holder for the entire building of this case, has the right to receive dividends from the Plaintiff’s total amount of the claim, and the entire amount of the dividend of Defendant Geum-gu Office and the remainder excluding the pertinent tax cannot be given priority to the above right to collateral security. Therefore, the Plaintiff should receive dividends from the Defendants in preference to the above right to claim.

B. Determination

Of the total dividend amount and the dividend amount of Defendant Geum-gu Office that the Plaintiff raised an objection, the part excluded from the pertinent tax is limited to OOO or OOOOO among the instant building. In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was paid the total amount of the claims reported with respect to the above OOO or OOOOOO as seen earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had the right to receive an additional dividend as a joint security holder for the entire building of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants on the premise that the Plaintiff had the right to receive an additional dividend does not have merit without any further need.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.