The distribution schedule of this case prepared with priority distribution to the Republic of Korea is legitimate.

The Republic of Korea constitutes a senior creditor in the distribution procedure rather than the Plaintiff, who is a general creditor, and thus, the instant distribution schedule is legitimate.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Suwon District Court-2014-Ban-65362

AA

Korea

on October 16, 2015

on October 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the dividend schedule prepared by the above court on November 10, 2014 in the Suwon District Court 2014 OOOO dividend procedure case, the dividend amount of the defendant Republic of Korea and the dividend amount of the defendant CCC shall be deleted, and the dividend amount of the plaintiff shall be corrected to the amount of OOO.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 000 million in mistake in the deposit account of the OB, Inc. (hereinafter “BB”) in the OB bank (1005401268 319).

B. On August 15, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against BB seeking the return of KRW 100,000,000,000 deposited by mistake as above, and the payment order was finalized on August 15, 2014 upon receipt of the payment order issued by O district court 2014 OOOO, and the payment order became final and conclusive based on the above payment order. The Plaintiff did not collect on August 28, 20

The order of seizure and collection was issued by the plaintiff, the debtor BB, and the third debtor as the OB bank (OO District Court 2014 OOO).

C. Meanwhile, with respect to the default of national taxes by BB, Defendant CCC seized or provisionally seized the deposit claim against OB Co., Ltd. (Cheongju District Court 2014Kadan2640) to preserve the claim against BB (Cheongju District Court 2014Kadan2640).

C. The OO bank deposited KRW 00,000,000,000,000,0000,000 from O0 to O0,000 won, excluding the amount of claims against the BB of the bank, as the OO district court in 2014.

D. In the distribution procedure (OO district court 2014 OOO dividend procedure) implemented on November 10, 2014 with respect to the above deposit, the OOOB drafted a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that the Defendant CCC distributes OO sources to the first (wages creditors) and the Defendant Republic of Korea (OO tax officials) as a seizure authority, and that the Plaintiff did not distribute the same to the Plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendants, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on November 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 13 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

The distribution schedule of this case, which does not entirely distribute to the Plaintiff and only distributes to the Defendants, should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The Defendants

The distribution schedule of this case is legitimate because the Republic of Korea, the CCC is a senior creditor rather than the Plaintiff, a general creditor.

3. Determination

According to relevant laws and regulations, wages for the last three months, retirement allowances for the last three years, and other claims arising from wages and other labor relations, national taxes, local taxes, expenses for disposition on default, additional dues, etc. shall be preferentially distributed with priority over one claim (see, e.g., Article 145(2) of the Civil Execution Act; Article 38(1) and (2) of the Labor Standards Act; Article 12(1) and (2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act; Article 35(1) main sentence and Article 35(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 99(1) main sentence

As to the instant case, Defendant Republic of Korea is a national tax creditor, and Defendant CCC is a wage bond holder, and thus, Defendant CCC is a senior creditor in the distribution procedure rather than the Plaintiff, a general creditor.

Therefore, the instant distribution schedule, made out of the content that preferentially distributes to Defendant Republic of Korea and CCC, is lawful, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.