1. It was prepared on September 17, 2015 by the said court with respect to the auction case of real estate Lives in the Changwon District Court Msan Branch.

1. In the L real estate auction procedure for each real estate owned by M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), the executing court, on the date of distribution on September 17, 2015, prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that, among the amount actually distributed in KRW 4,483,098,723, Defendant A, C, D, E, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K (hereinafter “Defendant A, etc.”) as the priority wage obligee, and the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), who is the right to demand a distribution, as the right to demand a distribution, distributes each amount indicated in the attached Table as the subrogation for the payment of wages, to the Plaintiff, who is the right to collateral security, the amount indicated in the attached Table, as the right to demand a distribution, and distributes each amount of KRW 4,145,474,867, as the right to demand a distribution.

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of the dividend distributed by the Defendants, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although Defendant A et al. asserted by the Plaintiff received only the corrected amount indicated in the separate sheet, which is the remainder after deducting the substitute payment actually received from the aggregate amount of wages and retirement allowances that should be paid as the top priority, the amount of dividends indicated in the same list was distributed.

Although there is no evidence to deem that the subrogated payment made by the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. was made with respect to wages in arrears with preferential payment rights of foreign workers, the Defendant Co., Ltd. prepared a distribution schedule as a subrogation of wages.

Therefore, as shown in the separate sheet, the dividend table should be revised as the amount calculated by deducting the amount of excess dividend from Defendant A, etc., and the dividend table should be revised as if the dividend is not paid to the Defendant Company.

B. Of Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B, the wage amounting to Defendant B is KRW 5,59,000 among the wage for the instant company.