Whether a plaintiff has the right to receive a dividend because it constitutes revocation of provisional seizure.

Even in cases where a decision of provisional seizure has been revoked during a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution after the date of distribution, it may be alleged as a ground for objection. The revocation by the withdrawal of an application for provisional seizure or the revocation of execution by the person holding the right to provisional seizure, thereby losing the status of receiving a distribution as a creditor of provisional seizure. The distribution schedule

Article 154 of the Civil Execution Act (Lawsuit of Demurrer) and Article 35 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017 Ghana 23625

AA

Korea

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

July 13, 2018

1. The Seoul Western District Court Decision 000 Mata 00000 Maz. 2017.

11. Of the dividend table prepared by 23. 23, 00,000 won for the defendant and 00 won for the plaintiff

The amount of dividends of KRW 00,000,000 shall be corrected in each amount of KRW 00,000,000.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

- 2-

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. BB’s claim claim amounting to KRW 200,000,000 against CCC on April 15, 2009

and Seoul Central District Court 2009Kadan3748, XX Dong2, XX-X 104.1m2

A provisional attachment decision as to shares 26.03/104.1 (hereinafter referred to as "real property of this case") owned by CCC

on the same day, the provisional attachment registration was completed on the same day (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional attachment of this case").

B. As to the instant real estate, DDD on April 20, 2009, CCC on the debtor, and credit

150,000,000 won was registered as a collateral (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage of this case")

C) As to the instant right to collateral security by reason of transfer of contract on September 2, 2010

Upon completion of the supplementary registration for the transfer of right to collateral security, the Plaintiff caused the transfer of the confirmed claim on April 20, 2012.

As to the instant right to collateral security, a supplementary registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security was completed.

C. The director of the tax office affiliated with the defendant shall hold four national taxes including the CCC’s transfer income tax for the year 201.

A total of KRW 000,000,000 was delinquent, and on March 27, 2013, the instant real estate was seized.

D. On November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) on the instant real estate based on the instant right to collateral security;

Busan District Court Decision 2016 Doz.000 and applied for voluntary auction on November 24, 2016

The court has made a final decision (hereinafter referred to as "the auction procedure of this case").

E. On November 23, 2017, the date of distribution, the actual amount of distribution excluding the cost of execution.

To distribute 00,000,000 won to the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a holder of the first priority (relevant tax) shall be 154,250 won.

The remaining KRW 100,195,041 (=100,349,291 - 154,250) is distributed to the Plaintiff first.

- 3-

then distributed to the remaining creditors, and to the plaintiff prior to the instant collateral security against the plaintiff

(BB), other than BBB, which has completed the registration of provisional seizure, absorbs the pro rata distribution amount to other creditors.

the lower court’s judgment that became final and conclusive after the date of establishment of the instant collateral security

(U.S. Tax Office) and Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall pro rata to the amount of the divided distribution against BB in proportion to the amount of the credit.

to absorb the plaintiff, 74,637,153 won, 10,769 won, and 10,769 won in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City,

The distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule of this case") shall be deemed to distribute 25,547,119 won to the High Court (YOT).

2.2.3

F. The plaintiff is present on the date of the above distribution and distribution to Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the defendant (Yansansan Tax Office).

The instant lawsuit was filed on November 29, 2017.

G. BB AB withdraws an application for provisional attachment of this case on February 8, 2018 during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit

And the provisional seizure of this case was revoked accordingly.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers, if any), Eul

Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

If the ruling of provisional seizure to which a creditor has received has been revoked, such creditor shall be distributed as a creditor of provisional seizure.

Since the provisional attachment ruling loses its status, the revocation of the provisional attachment ruling is against the creditor of provisional attachment in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

The Plaintiff may be the grounds for raising an objection to a distribution. Furthermore, in a lawsuit of demurrer to a distribution, the Plaintiff may file such objection after the date of distribution.

Inasmuch as the reasons arisen until the closing of argument in the trial room can also be asserted as the grounds for objection, a copy after the date of distribution.

Even if a decision of provisional seizure is revoked during a lawsuit of an objection, such a decision may be asserted as a ground for objection.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27427 Decided August 23, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2015Da10523 Decided June 11, 2015

(see, e.g., Decision)

- 4-

We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles. The instant provisional attachment during the course of the instant lawsuit.

As seen earlier, the fact that BB had been released from the application for withdrawal and cancellation of enforcement is as seen earlier, BB lost the status of receiving dividends as the creditor of provisional seizure. Ultimately, BB loses the status of receiving dividends as the creditor of provisional seizure.

Under the premise that he is in the status of being entitled to dividends as a right holder, part of the dividend amount against BB is insufficient for the Defendant.

The instant distribution schedule distributed to the Defendant as above is unlawful.

Therefore, 25,547,119 won and 25,547,119 won and 25,000 won for the plaintiff among the distribution schedule of this case

The amount of dividends of KRW 74,637,153 shall be corrected in 100,184,272, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.