If dividends are received according to the distribution procedure, it does not violate the principle of trust and good faith.

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to deem that the Defendant Republic of Korea violated the principle of good faith or constitutes an abuse of rights by taking dividends in the distribution procedure.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015 grouped 21533 of the Demurrer

Gangwon 00

Korea

May 10, 2016

May 31, 2016

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on October 27, 2015 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Changwon District Court 2015 another 187, the amount of dividends to the defendant Lee 00,000,000 won for the defendant Lee 00, and the amount of dividends to the defendant Lee 00,000 won shall be adjusted to zero, respectively, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party) shall be adjusted to KRW 00,00,000,000 for the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party).

2. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim against the Republic of Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant 11 and this twenty-two-two shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the part arising between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant Republic of Korea respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

In the distribution procedure of Changwon District Court 2015 another 187, the dividend amount of 13,472,845 won against the plaintiff among the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on October 27, 2015, KRW 58,084,295 won; KRW 00,000,000 for the amount of dividends against the defendant Republic of Korea; KRW 0,000,000 for the amount of dividends against the defendant 00; KRW 0,000 for the amount of dividends against the defendant 00; KRW 0,000,000 for the amount of dividends against the defendant 0, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The designated parties, including the Plaintiff (Appointeds), have carried out some of the construction works related to the 00 comprehensive construction works (hereinafter referred to as 00 comprehensive construction works), 00,000,000 in South-Nam, and accordingly, with respect to the 00 comprehensive construction works (hereinafter referred to as 00,000,000, 000, 000, 000, 000,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 1000, 1000, 100, 1000, 100, 100, 100, 100, 1000, 100,000, 100,000, 1000,000, 100,000, 40,000, 200, 400, 10,000.

B. The distribution procedure was conducted in accordance with the procedure for selling the investment certificates, which was made as described in the above paragraph (a) with respect to the securities in which 00 comprehensive construction made (this Court 2015Mo187), and the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) are the execution creditors described in the above paragraph (a) as to the 00 comprehensive construction. The defendant Republic of Korea is the execution creditor who has the right to demand a distribution as the creditor who has the right to demand a distribution as the creditor who has the right to demand a payment of national tax in arrears against the sub-construction, and the defendant 00 and 00 are the persons who have the right to demand a distribution as the provisional attachment

C. On October 27, 2015, the dividend court determined the amount to be actually distributed as KRW 58,084,295, as KRW 36,459,260 (100%) out of the dividend amount to the defendant Republic of Korea, 13,472,845 (62% of the dividend amount) to the plaintiff, 2, 13,472,845 (62% of the dividend amount) to the plaintiff, 00 to the defendant, 4,520,925 (20.906% of the dividend amount) to 00, 3,631,265 (the dividend rate to 16.792%) to 00, 000 won to 00, 000 won to 100, 000 won to 100, 000 won to 10,000 won to 16.792% to 10% to 100,0000 of the dividend amount to 1.

D. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the entire dividend amount of the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 30, 2015, which was within seven days thereafter.

E. Defendant Lee 00 and Lee 00 received all the amount of a claim for provisional seizure against each claim after receiving the decision of provisional seizure against each claim.

[Ground of recognition] Regarding Defendant Lee Jong-woo and Lee Lee-young: Statement of Confession (Article 208(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act) as to the Defendant’s assertion of confession (Article 208(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act): Facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), Eul’s evidence Nos.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Lee 00 and Lee 00

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Defendant Lee 00 and Lee 00 have extinguished by repayment of the claim. Thus, under the premise that Defendant Lee 00 and Lee 00 have a claim for 00 comprehensive construction, the distribution schedule prepared with the content of distributing the amount stated in the claim to the above Defendants is unfair. Since the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the dividend portion of the above Defendants, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case after having raised an objection against the said Defendants, among the distribution schedule prepared on October 27, 2015, the amount of dividends against Defendant Lee 00 as KRW 0,000,000, and the amount of dividends against the Defendant Lee 00,000,000,0000 won against the Plaintiff (= 00,000,0000 +00,0000 + + 00,0000,000 each correction).

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff did not have a dividend claim since the total national and local taxes were paid in full, and ② even if the unpaid national and local taxes remain, the auction procedure was conducted by finding out 00 investment certificates of comprehensive construction and making efforts to proceed with the auction procedure. Defendant Republic of Korea did not take measures to secure the Plaintiff’s right to the so-called So-called So-called So-young Construction until the Plaintiff makes a statement of objection on the date of distribution of this case. Defendant Republic of Korea received dividends by taking advantage of the circumstances in which the Plaintiff is proceeding with the instant auction procedure. Defendant Republic of Korea neglected the collection procedure of national taxes, and Defendant Republic of Korea caused additional dues of KRW 00,000,000, which constitutes an act that violates the principle of trust and good faith or constitutes an abuse of right, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea’s exercise of rights should be corrected to delete the dividend amount to Defendant Republic of

B. Determination

First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the 00 comprehensive construction paid the full amount of national and local taxes to the defendant Republic of Korea, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

Then, considering whether Defendant Republic of Korea’s exercise of rights constitutes a violation of the good faith principle or an abuse of rights, even based on the above facts, Defendant Republic of Korea appears to have prepared a distribution schedule by demanding a distribution within the scope of legitimate exercise of rights as a payer of national tax in arrears. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as a violation of the good faith principle or an abuse of rights with the sole fact of receiving dividends in the distribution procedure by Defendant Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is difficult to

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim against the defendant Lee 00 is justified, and the defendant's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.