1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is modified as follows.

Seoul Western District Court E.

Basic Facts

The reasons to be stated in this part are as follows, if the court excludes the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance from adding and adding it as follows, it is identical to the part of “1. Basic Facts” among the reasons of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is citing the summary and the attached form pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Part 2, in Part 18, the “Defendant C’s Intervenor” (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) shall be written in Part 18 as “D”, and all “Supplementary Intervenors” below shall be written in D”.

The defendant C in Part 5 of Part 3 shall be put into "Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial" and shall be put into practice.

Part 3, part 14 and 20 "Defendant B" shall be applied to "Defendant B", respectively.

Part 4, paragraph 2, shall be added to the following:

On the other hand, on May 9, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) received a claim claim amounting to KRW 359,238,177, such as the principal and interest of the claim under the instant payment order; and (b) received a seizure and collection order as to the dividend claim claim claim amount to be paid from the Republic of Korea in the said real estate compulsory auction case (Seoul Western District Court 2018Tho 5300); and (c) around that time, the said decision was served on the Republic of Korea, a third debtor, and became final and conclusive." (e) Part 3 of Section 4 of the same Act.

The key point of the argument and determination party's argument is that the amount of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security should be recognized only for KRW 113,00,000,000, which I directly remitted to D.

The sum of KRW 120,00,000,000, which was corrected to be distributed to D (the plaintiff entitled to collection) according to the judgment of the court of first instance, from the dividend amount of co-defendant C of the first instance court of KRW 181,035,878, which is the amount claimed for the Plaintiff’s dividends, and KRW 61,035,878, which was distributed to D (the plaintiff entitled to collection) according to the judgment of the court of first instance, and the surplus paid to D (the plaintiff entitled to collection) in the instant distribution schedule.

Exclusion B, since the remaining amount that the Plaintiff did not receive is KRW 179,717,442, the amount that the Plaintiff did not receive is KRW 450,00,000 of the dividend amount against the Defendant in the instant dividend table, 270,282,558 = 450,00,000,000 - 179,717.