1. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province: KRW 26,895,604, out of KRW 101,00,000 deposited by this Court No. 1997 on November 12, 2010.

1. Grounds for claims: To be stated in attached Form of grounds for claims;

2. Defendant 1 through 8: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2, and Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Defendant 9: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

4. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd.

A. Defendant Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. did not at all assert and prove that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted at the first date for pleading, while attending the first time for pleading, Defendant Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. did not at all assert and prove that the claim of Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. is priority over that of Nonparty G’s claim. However, the argument of Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. is without merit

B. In light of the purpose of mixed deposit, the deposited person shall not only have the relation to the other deposited parties in claiming the withdrawal of deposited goods, but also have the document proving that the executor has the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods in relation to the executor’s creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012). Therefore, there is a benefit to seek the confirmation from the Plaintiff.

C. In a case where a claim is transferred double, the obligor’s perception of the assignment of claim is not determined after the date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the date and time of the consent with the date and time that the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the obligor, namely, by the date and time that the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the obligor. This legal doctrine applies to a case where the obligor of the provisional seizure order with respect to the same claim is determined by the same priority as the assignee, and thus, the order of transfer with the notification of the assignment of claim with the fixed date and the order of provisional seizure should be determined after the arrival

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24223 delivered on April 26, 1994). The debtor seizes or seizes the debtor.