1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on October 17, 2018 by the above court with respect to the case of application for compulsory auction of D real estate in Incheon District Court D.

1. The facts that the distribution schedule was prepared as shown in the attached Table No. 1 in the auction auction case as stated in paragraph (1) of the text of the basic facts, and that the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution on October 17, 2018 and raised an objection against KRW 23,879,182 among the dividends of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (Co., Ltd. E before the alteration; hereinafter “B”), respectively, against the total dividends of Defendant C, may be acknowledged by the descriptions of the evidence No. 1 through No. 3, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant C.

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The remaining secured claim amount of Defendant B’s right to collateral security is 29,072,913 as Defendant B.

Thus, it is unreasonable to distribute the secured claim amount to Defendant B up to KRW 35,927,087 (i.e., KRW 65,00,000 - KRW 29,072,913). Thus, the above KRW 35,927,087 out of the dividend amount to Defendant B should be deleted from the instant distribution schedule.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the amount deleted out of the amount distributed to Defendant B should be distributed to himself/herself. However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that Defendant B submitted to the auction court on November 16, 2018, an application for additional distribution claiming the additional distribution to other creditors for the remaining amount excluding the amount of KRW 29,072,913 out of his/her dividend amount, excluding the remaining amount 29,072,913 out of the dividend amount. This constitutes grounds for additional

In this case, in the instant case where there is a dividend amount unpaid to creditors (Defendant C and F) who did not raise an objection to the dividend, barring any special circumstance such as the said creditors renounced the additional dividend, the deleted dividend amount of Defendant B cannot be distributed to the Plaintiff, and the distribution schedule should be changed for creditors who did not raise an objection to the dividend. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the part demanding the Plaintiff to distribute the deleted dividend amount of Defendant B as it is to the Plaintiff is without merit.

Therefore, the dividend amount of Defendant B among the instant dividend table.