1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on December 19, 2014 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Seoul Central District Court D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From January 3, 2014 to April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied food materials to the Hanmangy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Burgy”), which is engaged in the Hanmanging Project, and the amount of the unpaid credit payment to KRW 22,539,590.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff made an application for provisional seizure of claims against the credit sales payment claim against the obligor Home Pulers Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Home Pulers”) by using the credit payment claim as the right to preserve the credit payment claim (2014Kadan39388), and this court made a decision to accept it on April 29, 2014.

B. Upon the competition of seizure and provisional seizure with respect to the credit payment obligations for BC, The Home Puss deposited KRW 41,463,787 at this Court around June 3, 2014, as the court around June 3, 2014.

C. In the distribution procedure of D in this court proceeding, the distribution court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes 9,822,580 won out of 41,530,051 won to Defendant B (100%) to Defendant B (14.767%), 31,936 won to Defendant B (14.767% of the dividend ratio), 28,373,686 won to Defendant C (14.767% of the dividend ratio), 3,301,849 won to Defendant C (14.767% of the dividend ratio) to the person holding the right of provisional seizure.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of KRW 9,854,516 (= KRW 9,822,580, KRW 31,936) against Defendant B, and KRW 9,203,225 out of the amount of dividends against Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's evidence No. 9 through 11, witness E's testimony, and purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 5, which the Plaintiff invoked against Defendant B, and the purport of the entire pleadings in witness E’s testimony, the above Defendant asserted that BC had wage claims, and filed an application for payment order, and received payment order as the court No. 2014 tea36550. However, C&C is the above Defendant.