1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on December 18, 2018 with respect to the Seoul Southern District Court B, C, D, E, and F cases.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of provisional attachment against G (the foregoing two condominiums are referred to as “instant real estate”) on September 23, 2016, as a creditor of indemnity payment against G (the Seoul Southern District Court 2018Guj133465, Jun. 18, 2018).

On June 9, 2017, Defendant also completed the registration of provisional seizure on the instant real estate.

B. In the auction procedure stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition on the instant real estate, the court opened a date of distribution on December 18, 2018, and prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that some of the amount of claim 867,190,880 won is distributed to the Defendant, among the amount of claim 189,435,685 won as a mortgagee, and the amount of claim 189,942,65 won as a creditor of provisional attachment and the amount of claim 189,685 won as a creditor of provisional attachment.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 144,506,973 out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 24, 2018.

The defendant asserted the above provisional attachment preservation claim and filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against G, but the judgment against the plaintiff was finalized on February 22, 2019.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The fact that the Defendant received a final and conclusive judgment against G in the lawsuit filed against G by asserting that he/she had the right to be preserved for provisional seizure completed in the instant real estate. As such, the part of the distribution schedule of this case that distributed to the Defendant is unlawful.

Therefore, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the instant dividend table ought to be revised to reduce the amount of KRW 144,506,973 that the Plaintiff raised an objection from the amount of dividends against the Defendant, and to increase the amount of dividends against the Plaintiff.

According to the records, other creditors and debtors other than the plaintiff, other creditors and debtors, other than the plaintiff, raise an objection to the distribution of the defendant.