1. The Defendants shall transfer each of the claims listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, and the Government of the Republic of Korea District Court.

1. The distribution schedule was prepared as follows in the case: (a) Defendant H (Appointed) 3, 192, 110, 132, 110, 132, 110, 79, 360, 700, 192, 360, 360, 7713, 760, 760, 333, 333, 192, 193, 1,093, 327, 4193, 327, 4193, Defendant Cmortgage (Appointed 192, 940, 3333, 257, 253, 2510, 254, 201, 204, 206, 204, 206, 204, 33, 3,000, 3,000

The Plaintiff and the Defendants appeared on the date of distribution of the instant case, and raised an objection against each of the dividend amounts against the Gangwon Tax Office and G among the distribution schedule of this case.

After that, the Defendants filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution [the District Court Decision 2016Da124764, 2016Kadan32544, hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”) against the Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea): and G, and the Plaintiff did not file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the Republic of Korea only against G, while filing a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against G.

In the preceding lawsuit of this case, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that "the dividends of KRW 132,79,360 against the Republic of Korea in the dividend table of this case shall be corrected to KRW 14,514,970,00,000,000 for the corresponding tax amount exceeding KRW 14,514,970,00 for the corresponding tax amount of KRW 118,284,39,390 for the real estate for auction among the dividends of KRW 132,79,360 for the pertinent tax amount of KRW 1318,284,39,360 for the Republic of Korea, the difference shall be adjusted to KRW 118,284,39,00 for the defendant B and C, and KRW 50,270,866 for the defendant D (Appointed Party) and H (Appointed Party) shall be corrected to additionally distribute KRW 8,871,329, respectively, as it is finalized."

The Defendants have not yet received the money additionally distributed through the prior suit of this case.

Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 1.