1. Defendant among the distribution schedule prepared on December 17, 2015 by the said court with respect to the Suwon District Court C’s auction of real estate.

1. Evidence 【Evidence】1, A2-1 through 3, A3-1 through 5, A4-1, 2, A5-1, 2, A6-1, 2, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. In order to secure loan claims, the Industrial Bank of Korea established a collateral security right in the name of the E land, F land, G land, H land, H forest, and I ground buildings (hereinafter “the above land and buildings”) in the name of the E, F, H land, H land, forest, and building (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

B. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the secured debt from the Industrial Bank of Korea, and applied for an auction to exercise the security right on each of the instant real estate.

(U.C.).

Since the Defendants did not receive wages and retirement allowances, they should receive the top priority dividends from the proceeds from the sale of each real estate of this case, and around January 2015, they made a demand for distribution as follows.

Name No. 6,504,950 18,518,046 25,022,996 2 B 2,912,680,680 8,074,530,530,987,210 (wons) 1 A,592,270,270 10,546 25,022,996

D. On the date of distribution conducted on December 17, 2015, the above court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes each of the dividends of KRW 10,987,210 to Defendant A, KRW 14,035,786 to Defendant B, and KRW 353,125,295 to the applicant creditor, as the wage creditor, to Defendant A, and KRW 14,035,786, and KRW 10,987,210 to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) on December 21, 2015.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Defendant A served as a long-term internal director or representative director on the part of Defendant A, and Defendant B was registered as Defendant A’s wife and did not actually provide labor, the instant distribution schedule that deemed the Defendants as an employee and distributed preferentially to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

(2) The Defendants’.