1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 74,05,778 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from August 26, 2015 to January 25, 2017.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff received the claim amounting to KRW 3,806,874,856 with respect to the right to claim payment of the deposit to be received from the Republic of Korea in the instant distribution procedure. As such, the Defendant received each claim amounting to KRW 8,360,05,746 and received each claim seizure and collection order with the Defendant’s amount of KRW 8,360,005,746, and thus, the Defendant received the said amount of KRW 261,249,151, which constitutes the repayment deposit, on the basis of the above claim amount. However, the Defendant received the entire payment of the said amount from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obliged to pay damages for delay from May 29, 2015, which is the date the distribution schedule was revised.

B. Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “If a third party obligor deposits the total amount of monetary claims related to seizure, in which a third party obligor has already attached only a part of monetary claims, the amount of monetary claims that affect the seizure out of the deposit shall be considered as an execution deposit in its nature. However, since the excess of the amount of seizure does not affect the seizure, it shall be deemed as a repayment deposit. Therefore, the part of the deposit of this case, which affects the effect of seizure by the Plaintiff as the above Suwon District Court 201TT9103, shall be deemed as the execution deposit, the remainder of KRW 134,067,513, out of the deposit of this case, shall be deemed as the execution deposit, the remainder of KRW 261,249,151, which shall be deemed as the repayment deposit, and there is no room for preventing entry into a dividend by reporting the reason for deposit.

Meanwhile, on April 4, 2011, the claim amount as the Suwon District Court Decision 201Kadan100783, which was KRW 1,575,000,000, out of the claim for construction payment of this case, is KRW 200,000 among the claim for construction payment of this case.