1. With respect to the distribution procedure B case of Daegu District Court, the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on September 28, 2016.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries in Gap evidence 1 to 8 and the whole purport of pleadings:

The Plaintiff supplied the steel products to Korea Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea-China Steel”) from January 2, 2016 to April 19, 2016, and has a claim to receive KRW 214,141,993 as the price of the goods.

On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Busan District Court to issue a payment order with respect to the above product price claim, and on April 29, 2016, “Korea Steel shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 214,141,93 per annum from April 20, 2016 to May 12, 2016; and the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 15 per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.” The payment order was issued (Dasan District Court 2016j4130). The above payment order was finalized on May 27, 2016.

B. In order to preserve the above claim for the price of goods, the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment of machines and equipment located in the factory of Han Steel (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”) was carried out as the provisional attachment after the above payment order became final and conclusive.

C. Meanwhile, on March 29, 2016, Han Steel borrowed KRW 150,00,000 from the Defendant in excess of its obligation, and concluded a security agreement with the Defendant on each of the instant movable property as collateral (hereinafter “instant security agreement”). On the same day, the notary public drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract with collateral security (No. 61 of the 2016 deed).

After that, the defendant seized each of the movables of this case based on the executory exemplification of the above notarial deed.

The auction procedure of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. regarding each of the instant movable properties were concurrent (Tgu District Court, Daegu District Court, 2016No. 174, 2016Ga35, 2016No. 242, 2016No. 323). In accordance with the Plaintiff’s objection against the dividend consultation, the execution officer deposited the proceeds of the auction and deposited the proceeds of the auction, and the distribution procedure, Daegu District Court racing Support B, and hereinafter “instant dividend procedure”).