1. Defendant .. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court in September 2, 2015, in the previous Jeju District Court C Real Estate Compulsory Auction case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In this case’s case’s compulsory auction of real estate C (hereinafter “instant auction”), the Plaintiff reported the right to collateral security of KRW 3,695,462,606, Defendant A’s wage claim of KRW 6,766,530, and Defendant B’s wage and retirement allowance claim of KRW 12,130,000, respectively.

Of the amount of KRW 3,396,454,57 to be actually distributed on the date of distribution on September 2, 2015, this Court recognized the status of each wage obligee as the one having the first priority distribution right, and distributed KRW 6,766,530 to Defendant A, and KRW 12,130,000 to Defendant B, respectively, and drafted a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) to distribute dividends of KRW 3,340,163,856 to the Plaintiff, recognizing the status of the second priority distribution right holder as the one having the second priority distribution right.

The part on distribution of dividends to persons other than the parties to the judgment of this case is omitted.

B. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution amount against the Defendants on the date of distribution of the instant case, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution amounting to KRW 6,766,530,00 for each of KRW 4,382,090, and KRW 12,130,000,000,000 for the dividend amount against the Defendant B, which is within one week from the date of distribution.

The part concerning persons other than the parties to the judgment of this case is omitted.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the wage claims against the tent reported by the Defendants to the auction court of this case does not actually exist.

Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in Paragraph 1, which is the scope of the Plaintiff’s objection to the instant lawsuit, and since the Plaintiff did not have the right to receive a dividend, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case that only raises an objection to some of the funds, the Defendants shall make the remainder of the erroneously distributed dividends to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.