1. Seoul Central District Court C (D, E (Dual) shall be prepared on March 19, 2015 by the above court with respect to a compulsory auction case of real estate;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the real estate Nos. 115, 118, and 120 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the first floor of the Seoul Central District Court in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), the Seoul Central District Court C [D, E (Dupl)] conducted a compulsory auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and the said auction court, on March 19, 2015, prepared a distribution schedule for the amount of KRW 438,601,460 to be actually distributed to the Plaintiff and the Defendants (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

Defendant Company’s dividends 3777, 100,000 won 13,719,998 won 60,733,869 won for the dividend amount of Plaintiff B, Defendant B, 377, 100,000 provisional attachment right holder for provisional attachment right holder for reasons of provisional attachment

B. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 36,280,00 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant Company, and KRW 20,00,000 out of the dividend amount against Defendant B, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 26, 2015, which was within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim against the Defendant E&C coffee

A. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant Company’s claim marking company paid F as a person with a right to lease on a deposit basis, but did not pay the Defendant Company totaled KRW 36,280,000,00. Therefore, it is unreasonable that the Defendant Company paid the full amount of KRW 100,00,000 for security deposit not deducted the above overdue rent to the Defendant Company. As such, the amount of dividends of the Defendant Company should be reduced to KRW 63,719,998, and the said KRW 36,280,002 should be added to the Plaintiff’s amount of dividends.

(b) Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment made by deeming that the application is made);

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the amount of dividends against the defendant B should be corrected, as stated in the purport of the claim, if there is no claim against the defendant B F or if the claim against the defendant B was extinguished due to repayment.

(b) judgment;