1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on November 26, 2015 by the above court with respect to the case of the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch L deposit money.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, and witness M's testimony, and there is no counter-proof.

Plaintiff

A A Lending KRW 100 million to Plaintiff Sporo medicine Co., Ltd.; KRW 13 million to Plaintiff B; KRW 40 million to Plaintiff C; Plaintiff C’s KRW 19 million to each N medical life cooperative (hereinafter “debtor cooperative”); and the Plaintiffs have claims equivalent to each of the above loans against each of the obligors association.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were subject to compulsory execution against the claims against the National Health Insurance Corporation of the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the National Health Insurance Corporation deposited KRW 60,396,230, which was owed to the debtor association according to the compulsory execution by the Plaintiffs and many creditors, and the distribution procedure was initiated by the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch L.

C. However, in the above distribution procedure, the Defendants asserted that Defendant D is the designated party, and that “it has not received wages, etc. from the debtor partnership,” and demanded the distribution thereof.

On the date of distribution on November 26, 2015, the aforementioned court: (a) deemed the Defendants as the wage creditors having preferential right to payment; and (b) formulated a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 53,907,287 to Defendant D, the designated parties to the distribution; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiffs did not receive the distribution.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on December 2, 2015, which was within seven days after they raised an objection to the entire amount of dividends against the Defendants.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main claim causes of this case. The Defendants are only limited to investors in the debtor partnership, and they are not workers since they did not provide labor to the debtor partnership. Thus, the Defendants did not have the highest priority wage claim, and the above dividend amount to the Defendants should be distributed to the Plaintiffs.