If there is an amount of national tax claim already received, the dividend procedure in this case has the right to receive only the remaining amount.

If there is the amount of national tax claim already received, the right to receive dividends only for the balance of the distribution procedure in this case, so it is reasonable to have the excess dividends cultivated by the other creditors according to the ratio of the amount of credit as follows:

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013 grouped 24789 Demurrer against distribution

○○ and other ○○

Korea

September 24, 2013

November 5, 2013

1. Of the dividend schedule prepared by the above court on April 30, 2013, with respect to the dividend procedure case of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the instant judgment, the dividend amount to the Defendant shall be corrected to KRW ○○○○○○, KRW ○○○○○○○○ in the dividend table prepared by the said court on April 30, 2013, and the dividend amount to the Plaintiff○○○○○○○ in the instant judgment; KRW ○○○ in the dividend amount to the Plaintiff○○○ in the instant judgment; and KRW ○○ in the instant judgment, respectively.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

1) On August 2010, the non-party ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party ○○ Co., Ltd.") was settled in bankruptcy and the seizure, etc. of the claims against the non-party ○ Co., Ltd. were concurrent, on November 4, 2010, the non-party ○○ Co., Ltd. made a mixed deposit of the KRW ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the non-party ○ Co., Ltd.”) with ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the non-party 1 deposit”) with ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the non-party ○ Co., Ltd.”) on April 20, 2011.

2) The Plaintiff ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1”) received a seizure and collection order against Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”) and the Plaintiff ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 3”) on the same method among the rights to claim payment of the deposit money of Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”) on the part of Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 3”). Meanwhile, on the other hand, on August 16, 2010, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order against Nonparty Co., Ltd. on the same method (each seizure and collection order arrived at January 31, 2012). Meanwhile, on the other hand, on the part of Nonparty Co., Ltd.’s national tax claim against Nonparty Co., Ltd., the Defendant seized the claims against Nonparty Co. 2 on August 16, 2010.

3) When the seizure of the creditors of the non-party company including the plaintiffs and the creditors of the non-party company regarding the right to claim payment of deposit money of the non-party company, the above court deposited the above two deposits upon reporting the reasons therefor, and each of the above dividends procedure was commenced. The defendant reported the claim against the non-party company's ○○, excluding the amount already recovered from the above seized amount, and received the dividend from the above ○○○○, among which the defendant reported the claim against the above seized amount to the non-party company 1. The plaintiffs were excluded from the dividend.

4) On April 30, 2013, from the instant dividend procedure (this Court 2012 Taz. ○○○○○○○○○○), following the commencement of the instant deposit, the Defendant reported the amount of credit to ○○○○○○○○○○, and received the said amount in the first priority order. In the second priority, the Plaintiff 1, the Plaintiff 2, and the Plaintiff 3 received dividends from ○○○○○○○.

5) The Plaintiffs raised an objection against ○○○○○ out of the amount of dividends against the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, since the defendant had already received ○○○○○ Won from among the national tax claim ○○○○○○○○○○ Won, the defendant was entitled to receive dividends only for the remaining amount of ○○○○○○○○○ Won in the distribution procedure of this case, and such excess dividends are paid to the plaintiffs according to the ratio of the amount of credit, and it is reasonable to correct the distribution schedule of this case as stated below (However, since the plaintiffs raised an objection only to ○○○○ Won out of the amount of excess dividends that the defendant received, only ○○○○ Won should revise the distribution schedule).

Table Omission of the Table

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.