1. The distribution schedule prepared by the above court on January 7, 2020 concerning the case of voluntary auction of real estate C with the Gwangju District Court Netcheon Branch C.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff filed an application against D for payment order with the Gwangju District Court 2016j. 72, the Court of Gwangju District. On April 5, 2016, the said court issued a payment order to D with the purport that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 36 million won and interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment.” The said payment order was served to D on April 6, 2016 and became final and conclusive as of April 21, 2016.

On August 27, 2015, the defendant, at the claim amounting to KRW 25 million, obtained a provisional attachment decision (2015Kak 1567) against the real estate listed in the list of real estate owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch on August 27, 2015, and the provisional attachment registration was completed on the same day.

As of March 11, 2019, there was a decision to commence an auction based on the right to collateral security (Seoul District Court’s Netcheon Branch C) (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”), but on December 5, 2019, a distribution schedule containing the following contents was presented to interested parties present at the meeting on the date of distribution proceeding on January 7, 2020 after the instant real estate was sold, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant:

Plaintiff 3’s right to request dividend (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Hu72, Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Da72, Gwangju District Court Decision 2015KaMa3177), 101, 438, Defendant 3’s right to request provisional seizure (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da15672, 153, 776, on the other hand, the Plaintiff did not file a lawsuit within three years from the execution of provisional seizure under the above sub-paragraph (b) on the ground that the Defendant did not file a lawsuit within three years from the execution of provisional seizure, and the provisional seizure was revoked on November 18, 2020. The above decision became final and conclusive as it is.

[Grounds for recognition] The statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings, but the defendant distributed dividends as a provisional seizure right in the auction procedure of this case.