1. It was drawn up by the same court with respect to the auction case of the former Jeju District Court's Gunsan Branch X real estate.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is a medical corporation, the Medical Corporation, the Medical Corporation, the Medical Corporation, and the Medical Corporation (hereinafter “Dlim Medical Foundation”).

2) The Plaintiff’s each of the instant real estates owned by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s each of the instant real estates owned by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s each of the instant real estates.

2) The auction procedure of the instant case is “instant auction procedure” with respect to the Jeonju District Court’s Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch, X real estate auction

(2) On November 26, 2015, the Defendants were distributed KRW 1,193,053,149 as a mortgagee on November 26, 2015. (2) On November 26, 2015, the Defendants asserted the wage claim of the amount indicated in the “distribution amount” column in the attached Table by Defendant as an employee of the Korea Forest Medical Foundation. On November 26, 2015, the former Regional District Court established a distribution schedule that, on November 26, 2015, the Defendants were preferentially reimbursed the amount indicated in the “distribution amount” column before the Plaintiff as a mortgagee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

3) The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and raised an objection against the Defendants as to the entire amount of dividends. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, defendant T and K have presented a written answer to the Plaintiff and expressed their intent to challenge the Plaintiff’s claim. Although the Defendant A, C, G, K, M, N, P, P, and R did not appear on the date of pleading, they did not assert any specific facts that could deny the cause of the claim, but did not assert any assertion of legal principles, but they did not recognize the fact of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, and therefore, they recognized the above facts by taking account of the overall purport of the aforementioned evidence.

Since Defendant E and V were in progress by public notice, the above facts are recognized by the above evidence.

Defendant B, D, F, H, I, J, L,O, Q, S, U, and W are subject to a judgment of confession without being present at the date of pleading.

B. Article 37(2) of the Labor Standards Act as to the cause of the claim is a general security right at the public’s request to guarantee the minimum living of workers.