The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment is modified as follows.

Seoul Central District Court C.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below on the claim for the sales agency fees of D (hereinafter “D”) of this case was initiated on the grounds that the Defendant’s provisional seizure order against D’s claim against D as preserved claim, and the Defendant’s provisional seizure order against D’s claim against D as preserved claim, and the Defendant’s provisional seizure order against D’s claim against D as preserved claim such as investment funds and profits, etc. were concurrent with the execution claim, and the seizure and collection order against the execution claim of promissory notes were concurrent, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the entire amount of dividends as a person having the provisional seizure right and as a collection right among the distribution schedule.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, based on the premise that each of the investment agreements and promissory notes of this case were duly prepared, the defendant and D entered into a contract under which the defendant and D were provided funds for D's sales agency business on July 15, 2009 and August 21, 2009 with interest each amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 as interest, etc., and thus, determined that the defendant had claims against D, such as the above investment principal and interest within the scope of the limitation under the Interest Limitation Act, and claims for the guarantee,

Next, the lower court recognized that the Defendant, in addition to the above claims, has separate investment principal, revenue, loans, and damages for delay, as indicated in its reasoning, and subsequently appropriated the amount partially repaid by D to the Plaintiff in the order of statutory appropriation of performance against the Plaintiff.

In addition, among the defendant's claims remaining after satisfaction of payment, the amount of KRW 675 billion, which is the claim amount of provisional seizure, out of KRW 1 billion of L investment profits in the judgment below, is recognized as the claim amount of provisional seizure in this case, and the remainder of the claim except the amount of KRW 1 billion of L investment profits in this case, as the claim amount of the promissory notes in this case, the distribution schedule is corrected as stated below.