1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion is added by paragraph (3). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Each “G” of the two pages 2, 13, 17, 18, and 21 portion shall be raised to “J”.

2. The 14th parallel "95,145,340 won" shall be "95,00,000 won".

2. In the 16th page, the distribution schedule was prepared, “The distribution schedule was prepared.”

3. The defendant's dividends of KRW 160,159,525 to KRW 160,104,875 to the defendant for 160,159,525 of the three pages are as follows: "The full amount of KRW 160,104,875 is distributed to the defendant, after deducting the execution expenses from KRW 160,159,525 (including the interest on the deposit money)."

3. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the amount of additional dividends should be distributed to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff received KRW 210,000,000,000, which is a part of the deposit that was distributed in the J’s future, from among the money distributed in F and J between the Plaintiff, F and J, and the remainder was agreed to receive by the Plaintiff.

If it is found that the amount of the claim of the creditor of provisional seizure after the deposit of the amount of the claim of the creditor of provisional seizure is not limited to the deposit, the remaining amount of the deposit, unless other creditors satisfied in the initial distribution procedure, shall be distributed additionally to the creditor.

Provided, That where an agreement is reached that the provisional seizure creditor will vest part of the amount of claims of the provisional seizure creditor in the principal lawsuit (this refers to the transfer of deposit claims) after the amount of claims is fixed, the problem of additional distribution does not arise.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, around October 2009, the plaintiff shall be paid KRW 210 million between the plaintiff, F, and J to F and J on or around October 2009, but it is recognized that the J has agreed to receive the above KRW 210 million from the dividends deposited in the future.