The distribution schedule of this case distributed to the above Defendants is unreasonable, excluding the plaintiff in the status of the creditor entitled to senior dividends.

It is clear that the Plaintiff was a creditor entitled to receive dividends under the Civil Execution Act, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was transferred the status of the creditor entitled to dividends from the savings bank in the auction procedure of this case, inasmuch as Nonparty Savings Bank transferred its claims against thisCC to the Plaintiff, notified the transfer thereof, and submitted a written consent to distribute dividends to the Plaintiff by Nonparty Savings Bank prior to the date of distribution to the auction court of this case.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Single 57654 Demurrer against distribution

Korea Asset Management Corporation

Park XX et al.

May 23, 2012

July 6, 2012

1. As to the case of the auction for real estate rent, the amount of dividends to the Defendant Park Jong-A out of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 26, 201, KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

"A. The defendants received each amount indicated in the [Attachment List] (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") from the Ji Government District Court 2010 other or around 42542 with respect to the real estate property listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), from the third mortgagee, from the defendant Park Jong-A as the third mortgagee, from the North Mancheon-do Office under the Republic of Korea as the fourth mortgagee, and from the defendant YoonB as the fifth mortgagee, from the third mortgagee." However, the real estate of this case was the real estate of this case with priority over the defendant Park Jong-A as the government registry office of the District Court 161201 as of December 24, 2008, as the collateral security (hereinafter "the collateral security") was established with respect to the claim of this case, and the particulars leading up to the transfer of the claim of this case and the claim of this case against the plaintiff to the court of auction.

(The following table omitted)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant ParkA and the Republic of Korea

Defendant ParkA and Defendant Republic of Korea, who excluded the Plaintiff from the assignment of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) from the transfer of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security), and asserted that the instant distribution schedule was unreasonable, and sought correction of the instant distribution schedule by eliminating the dividend payment that the Defendants received against the said Defendants and distributing the entire dividend to the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, inasmuch as: (a) at the time of transfer of the claim against CC to the Plaintiff, XX was already registered prior to the registration of the first decision on commencing the auction as a mortgage; and (b) the creditor having the right to become extinct due to sale, and was a creditor entitled to receive dividends under Article 148(4) of the Civil Execution Act, and (c) submitted a written consent to transfer the claim against CC to the Plaintiff and notify the transfer thereof; and (b) in addition, the court of auction of this case also agreed to distribute dividends to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was transferred the status of the creditor entitled to receive dividends in the auction procedure of this case from the date of distribution (B).

Therefore, the instant distribution schedule, which was distributed to the above Defendants, is unfair, to exclude the Plaintiff in the status of the creditor entitled to senior dividends, and thus, it is reasonable to delete the entire amount of dividends to the above Defendants and distribute the amount equivalent to the above amount to the Plaintiff, and correct the instant distribution schedule.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant leB

A. The cause of the claim: The instant distribution schedule that excluded the Plaintiff in the position of the creditor entitled to senior dividends and distributed to Defendant B is unreasonable, and thus, sought correction of the instant distribution schedule by asserting that the dividend dividends against Defendant leB are distributed to the Plaintiff.

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified.