1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified upon a request that has been modified in the trial as follows:

The Busan District Court shall assist the Incheon District Court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding or adding the following contents with respect to the claim that has been changed in the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The three pages of the judgment of the court in addition or in addition shall be two, and the three pages of the judgment of the court in addition or in addition "141,012,517 won to be actually distributed" shall be "137,941,879 won to be actually distributed."

In the end of paragraph 3 of the judgment of the court, “the plaintiff was present on the date of the above distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends of the defendant” shall be added, and “(based on recognition)” shall be added to “A evidence 9”.

5. The 8th to 12th shall be written in the following manner:

"The lease contract of this case is null and void by the plaintiff's exercise of avoidance power, so the amount of dividend 22 million won against the defendant and eight million won should be deleted from the distribution schedule of this case.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court of first instance corrected the distribution schedule that some of the deleted amounts is distributed to the Republic of Korea (the disposition office: the disposition office) who has the right to claim the delivery of dividends in the fifth priority. The claims of the above Republic of Korea (the disposition office: the disposition office) constitute estate claims provided for in subparagraph 2 of Article 473 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

In an auction procedure commenced through the execution of the right to separation on real estate owned by a bankrupt, a claim filed by the tax authority for delivery is recognized only as limited effect which prevents the holder of the right to separate settlement from obtaining any profit more favorable than before the bankruptcy due to the bankruptcy and deducts the corresponding amount of claims which take precedence over the right to separate settlement for the public interest to secure appropriate dividend resources. Therefore, the dividend on the request for delivery is not directly granted to the tax authority which is the creditor, but the trustee in bankruptcy shall not be directly granted to each foundation, in accordance