1. It was drawn up by the above court as of April 9, 2015 with respect to the voluntary auction of real estate F for Yangyang Branch of the District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. As to Article 1204 of the Goyang-gu H Complex Building (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) which was owned by Nonparty G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), on August 26, 2010, the right to collateral security was established in the name of the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 442,00,000,00 in the name of the said mutual savings bank. The right to collateral security was terminated in the name of the creditor of the KIKO Savings Bank.

On December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff finally acquired the secured debt of the above-mortgage and the above-mortgage through a disaster victim.

B. A voluntary auction procedure was conducted with respect to the above real estate at the Ji Government District Court Goyang Branch F, and the Defendants filed an application for provisional seizure with Defendant B, E, and D for each demand for distribution on the ground that there was a wage claim against the non-party company, and Defendant C filed an application for provisional seizure with the above real estate amount of KRW 47,068,558, and completed the registration thereof. The Defendants submitted the following detailed claim statements in the above auction procedure:

Retirement pay B 3,00,000 on April 19, 201- C 10.10- April 19, 201-C on April 19, 2011- April 19, 2013-D 23 months on September 2011, 2013- September 23, 2013: 4,50,000,4004,623,286 E on May 28, 2011;

C. The above court preferentially distributed the defendants the amount corresponding to the wages and retirement allowances for the last three months and the last three years, and prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the remaining amount to the Gyeyang-gu and the KIKO Savings Bank Co., Ltd., a mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), which is subordinate, the plaintiff could not receive dividends.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the dividend of the defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendants cannot be viewed as the true worker of the non-party company, or the wages for the last three months.