1. The defendant among the distribution schedule prepared on June 22, 2016 by the said court with respect to distribution procedures set forth in Yeongdeungpo-gu District Court Younguk Branch B.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2015, based on the Daegu District Court Decision 2014Kadan53797, the Defendant seized the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet owned by flooding foods (hereinafter “instant movables”) (Seoul District Court Yong-gu District Court Decision 2015Mo125) with respect to salt foods (hereinafter “brue foods”).

B. On January 2016, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of the final claim from the National Bank of Korea (1,447,086,452 won as of September 30, 2015), filed an application for provisional attachment (200 million won) with the Seoul Central District Court (2016Kadan45) and received a decision of provisional attachment from the above court on January 28, 2016. On January 28, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution (2016Ga3) with the executing court, provisionally seized the instant movable around February 2016.

C. The instant movable was sold during the enforcement process on April 20, 2016, and the sales price was deposited with the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) as the Youngdeok Branch 2016Hun-Ba85.

In the distribution procedure B (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”) with respect to the above deposit money, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule to distribute dividends of KRW 26,491,711, the total amount of dividends in the first order to the defendant who is the seizure authority (the total amount of claims KRW 90,369,398), on June 22, 2016, and the plaintiff stated that he/she has an objection against KRW 17,425,649, out of the defendant’s dividends.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff is the provisional attachment authority but should have received dividends in the dividend procedure of this case as a dual attachment authority pursuant to Article 215 of the Civil Execution Act, but the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is merely the provisional attachment authority and thus cannot participate in the dividend procedure of this case, and thus, it should be excluded from the

B. We examine the judgment, and the Civil Execution Act.