1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on June 13, 2014 by the said court with respect to distribution procedure cases involving the Seoul Central District Court G District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was issued a seizure collection order with regard to the H’s right to request the collection of the deposit money of KRW 755 million in the same court as Suwon District Court Decision 2014TTTT1097, which was KRW 35 million.

B. Defendant B was issued with the Seoul Central District Court 2014TT3072, Defendant C was issued with the Seoul Central District Court 2014TT3073, Defendant D, E, and F respectively with the Seoul Central District Court 2014TT3752, and each H’s claim for recovery of the above deposit was issued with the seizure collection order.

The Defendants’ claims based on each of the above orders for the collection of seizure are ① The Defendant B’s claims for loans of KRW 1,443,568,288 based on the order for the payment of order 2013 tea 2013,2093. ② The Defendant C is the Defendant C’s claims for loans of KRW 1,387,721,540 based on the order for the payment of 2013, 1136, 200, 3 Defendant D, E, and F are each loans of KRW 559,798,00 based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013, 200, 419,426,000, Defendant E, F289,200,000.

C. Of KRW 35,758,174, the amount to be actually distributed from the date of distribution (Seoul Central District Court G) held on June 13, 2014 for the distribution of deposit, KRW 152,320 won was preferentially distributed to Defendant C, and KRW 35,605,854, the remaining amount was 81,502 won to the Plaintiff in proportion to the amount of the claim by Defendant, each of which is the second creditors, and KRW 12,251,592 won to Defendant C, KRW 11,777,621, and KRW 4,751,017 to Defendant D, KRW 3,559,676 to Defendant E, and KRW 2,454,466 to Defendant F, respectively.

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of dividends against the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, Eul 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since each seizure claim, which forms the basis of the dividend amount against the Defendants, among the Plaintiff’s assertion distribution schedule, is false claims, the entire dividend amount against the Defendants shall be deleted.