The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In the distribution procedure of claims B by the Daegu District Court, the court presented 38,873,062 won (the reported amount of claims shall be KRW 382,29,866), the collection right (the amount of claims shall be KRW 224,143,465 won), the amount to be distributed to the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund (the Daegu District Court 2019Ka 36283, the Daegu District Court 2019), the amount of KRW 103,874,824 (the reported amount of claims shall be KRW 485,035,378), the provisional seizure right (the reported amount of claims shall be KRW 40594, the Seoul District Court 201, the Seoul District Court 201, the amount of claims shall be KRW 81,873,062 (the reported amount of claims shall be KRW 382,29,866), the collection right (the Daegu District Court 2020 and KRW 10082).

B. The Plaintiff, who received a part of the provisional seizure right, has also raised an objection against the distribution portion of the dividends to the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund that received a part of the dividend (the Credit Guarantee Fund did not raise an objection against the part of the distribution as the collection right).

The above distribution procedure was the provisional attachment against the creditor against the money that the debtor C received as a surplus in the case of voluntary auction of D's real estate at Sung-nam branch of Suwon District Court (the right to claim payment of surplus), and the execution court deposited this provisional attachment with Sungwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2019, 6270. After then, the execution court deposited the claim for payment of deposit with the creditor again, and the seizure and collection order was issued again from the creditor against the claim for payment of deposit, the deposit officer was conducted as the distribution foundation by filing a report on the reason with the Daegu District Court which was the cause of the first provisional attachment decision.

【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (the main number of evidence omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the whole purport of the pleadings, and the whole purport of the pleadings. 2. The defendant's claim for the preservation of provisional seizure, which the defendant alleged, is part of the rehabilitation claims according to the repayment plan authorized in the rehabilitation procedure against the debtor corporation C.

(2).