1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,837,041,156 among the Plaintiff and KRW 900,685,624 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 1,837,041,156, and KRW 936,350,491 among the Plaintiff.

Attached Form

There is no dispute between the parties as to the facts stated in the cause of the claim, or it may be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the money recorded

The defendant asserts that the amount should be deducted from the amount of the plaintiff's claim inasmuch as it was distributed to the plaintiff in the auction procedure of real estate C in Seoul Central District Court as to the real estate B 1st floor in Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court C, which is real estate owned by the defendant.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that the claim of the creditor of provisional seizure who issued a provisional seizure order is extinguished at the time of the final and conclusive judgment on the merits to the extent that the amount of the claim is appropriated by the final and conclusive judgment on the merits, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da65874, Sept. 4, 214). The claim of the creditor of provisional seizure who issued a payment order in the final and conclusive judgment, etc. on the merits shall be deposited in the dividend table that the plaintiff received dividends of KRW 81,302,890 as the person holding the provisional seizure, and the plaintiff's claim becomes extinct merely because the plaintiff entered in the dividend table that received dividends of KRW 81,302,890, and there is no assertion that the amount of the claim of the plaintiff has been extinguished in whole or in part.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.