1. The document prepared by the said court on November 19, 2014 with respect to voluntary auction cases of real estate D with Seogu District Court Seo-gu District Court Branch D.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an asset-backed specialized company that acquired the right to collateral security against the Hanwon Sports Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Japan Sports”) from No. 401, 402, and 501 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. and the right to collateral security against the building No. 401, 402, and 501 owned by it.

B. On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with Seogu District Court Branch D with respect to the instant building based on the foregoing collateral security, and received a decision to voluntarily commence the auction from the above court.

C. On November 19, 2014, on the date of distribution of the said voluntary auction case, the said court prepared a distribution schedule stating that: (a) the Plaintiff, a mortgagee of a right to collateral security, shall be KRW 1,340,498,248; (b) the amount of KRW 3,827,850 to the Defendant A as each wage obligee; (c) KRW 3,803,00 to the Defendant B; and (d) KRW 10,825,301 to the Defendant C

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and stated an objection to the whole dividend amount of the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on November 25, 2014, within seven days thereafter.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants asserted that the amount of dividends against the Defendants should be deleted in the instant distribution schedule because they fall under either the most wage obligee or the recipient of all repayment because they did not submit any supporting material to prove that they are wage creditors when demanding distribution or did not apply for substitute payment.

B. Judgment by deeming the confession of claim against Defendant B and Defendant C (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

C. The burden of proof of the grounds for objection against the distribution against Defendant A in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In the event that the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s claim did not exist, the Defendant