1. The above court shall have jurisdiction over the auction cases of real estate deposit in the Jinwon District Court B (a duplicate), D, E (Dupl) of Jinwon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2013, the Busan Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) applied for a voluntary auction on the status of the mortgagee of the right to collateral on the building, etc. located in the private city owned by Nonparty F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) and applied for a voluntary auction on the 17th day of the same month to Jinwon District Court Jinwon Branch. Since the above auction case overlaps with the above court C, D, and E auction case, the auction procedure was initiated.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant auction case”). B.

The Plaintiff acquired all the principal and interest of the claim against the non-party company from the non-party bank, and succeeded to the status of the applicant creditor of the non-party bank during the process of the auction case in

C. On June 23, 2014, the date of distribution of the instant auction case, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 4 billion out of KRW 5.52 billion with the maximum debt amount of KRW 5.52 million. The Defendant, as a wage obligee, was prepared a distribution schedule that received KRW 24 million with the payment of KRW 24 million with the wage obligee, and the Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that since the plaintiff prepared a distribution schedule that the defendant participated in the distribution of the auction case of this case based on false wage claims and received dividends, the amount of dividends against the defendant should be deleted among the distribution schedule of the auction case of this case, and as such, the distribution schedule should be revised as additional dividends against the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant properly concluded an employment contract with the non-party company, and took part in the dividend of the auction case of this case on the basis of the wage claim that was not paid. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

(c)for description Nos. 1 and 8 of the board.