1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on December 18, 2015 in the Suwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch C case, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff received a decision on the provisional seizure of real estate (Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kadan2138) regarding the real estate of the non-party company with a claim of KRW 200,000,000 as a preserved claim against the K&D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”).

B. The non-party company deposited KRW 200,000,000 in the amount of deposit at sea (Seoul Eastern District Court 2014KaKa1714) on September 18, 2014.

C. On June 17, 2015, the Defendant received a claim amounting to KRW 202,50,500 as to the Nonparty Company’s right to claim the collection of deposit money against the Republic of Korea on the authentic copy of a promissory note No. 796 (No. 796) against Nonparty Company’s non-party company (U.S. District Court Sung-nam Branch Branch Office 2015TTTT6733).

On December 18, 2015, the instant dividend distribution procedure was conducted on the grounds of competition between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. On December 18, 2015, the dividend court prepared the instant dividend distribution schedule that distributes KRW 99,659,678 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 100,906,670 to the Defendant, respectively.

The Plaintiff raised an objection to KRW 100,340,322 out of the amount of dividends against the Defendant.

2. Determination

(a) In light of the purport of the system of revoking provisional seizure by deposit of the amount of release, the benefits which the creditor of provisional seizure may enjoy by provisional seizure shall not be infringed by the revocation of provisional seizure.

Therefore, even though the creditor of the provisional attachment obligor may cancel the provisional attachment execution by lending money to the debtor for the purpose of the provisional attachment deposit, it shall be deemed that the effect of seizure or provisional attachment by the above loan claim cannot be asserted in relation to the right to claim the recovery of the provisional attachment deposit in relation to the creditor of the provisional attachment unless there are special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da30820 delivered on June 26, 1998). B.

The defendant.