Correction of the amount of dividends where part of the claim has already been distributed due to the same claim in other real estate auction cases;

Since part of the claim has already been distributed or repaid due to the same claim in another real estate auction case, the amount of distribution of the successful bid price of the real estate in this case should be determined by reflecting the relevant facts.

2013 grouped 103148 Demurrer

Korea

KimA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

July 17, 2013

1. As to the auction of real estate (No. 1601), among the dividend table prepared by the above court on April 4, 2013, the amount of dividend payments to the defendant shall be corrected to the amount of OOO, and the amount of dividend payments to the plaintiff shall be corrected to the amount of OOOOO, respectively.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in the changed cause of claims; and

2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act;

Change in Claim Grounds

1. Improperity of distribution of dividends to the defendant;

"A. The defendant set up the real estate of this case on March 3, 2005 (Evidence No. 4, a certified copy of the register) with the loans granted to the non-party OOB B B B B D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D, as the secured claim (OOOOO(Evidence No. 3, June 12, 2004, OOOOO). Based on this, the defendant has participated in the distribution procedure of this case and demanded the total amount of the claims of the OOOO's. (Evidence No. 5, a distribution schedule). However, as examined below, the defendant has already received part of the claims due to the above claims in other real estate compulsory auction cases, etc. owned by BB D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D., and has already been paid dividends

1) Prior to the instant dividend procedure, the Seoul Eastern District Court rendered a provisional attachment order as the 2006 KadanOOO on February 15, 2006 on the land buildings owned by the defendant's OOOOO on the BB BB intersection due to the defendant's loan claims against the BB intersection (Evidence 6, a certified copy of the register).

2) The defendant participated in the distribution procedure of the case of compulsory auction for the above real estate (Seoul Eastern District Court 2006 OOO) and received the distribution of OOOO won among the OOO won (refer to A evidence No. 7, Seoul East District Court 2006 OOOO's distribution schedule).

3) Since then, the provisional attachment claim against the BB school was finalized in the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2007Gahap9328 by the BB school as the loan claim to be paid to the defendant by the BB school association (Evidence A8, a protocol of compromise).

4) Meanwhile, according to the Defendant’s winning in part of the suit for the claim for return of unjust enrichment filed by NonpartyCC on the ground that dividends distributed to Nonparty 1, a creditor under the distribution schedule for the compulsory auction of real estate at Seoul Eastern District Court at 2006ta District Court at 17687, the Defendant already received payment prior to the instant distribution procedure (see attached Table 3 of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008GahapOOOO decision at 2008, and attached Table 3 of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010NaOOO decision at 2011, May 19, 201).

C. Although the amount of claims remaining after having already been paid out of the claim amount of the non-party BB BB bridge, among the claims amount of the non-party BB bridge members, the defendant demands all of the claims amount of the non-indicted OO members in the dividend procedure in this case, and participate in the distribution, the execution court accepted the defendant's application and prepared the distribution schedule that the non-indicted OO members should be distributed to the defendant, but the above distribution schedule must be corrected on the basis of the facts examined in the above distribution schedule.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, under the instant distribution schedule, the Plaintiff corrected the amount of dividends to the Defendant from the OOO members to the OOO members, and the difference between the OOO members is attributable to the claim of this case (Evidence A No. 10) in the instant distribution procedure in order to seek correction to distribute the amount to the Plaintiff who is the owner.