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

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against E and the Plaintiff’s insolvency 1) against E is the building indicated in the separate sheet in the Daejeon District Court’s official residence branch No. 2015da543 (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) On May 12, 2015, upon filing a lawsuit seeking the return of lease deposit, E was rendered a judgment that “E shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 20% per annum from February 5, 2015 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is. 2) E filed an application for individual rehabilitation with Daejeon District Court 2015da25626 and decided to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure on November 18, 2015, but the said court decided to discontinue the individual rehabilitation procedure on June 23, 2017.

B. Change of the name of the owner of the instant building and registration of ownership preservation 1) E shall be deemed as “the instant land” in the Gongju-si, Gongju-si, one of which he own.

(2) During the construction of the instant building on the ground, on December 15, 2014, the owner changed the name of the building owner into D himself/herself, his/her own wife. (2) The Defendants purchased 1/2 equity shares in the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2015. On November 2, 2015, the Daejeon District Court rendered a decision on the prohibition of disposal of the instant building by deeming D as the right to claim removal of the instant building as the right to be preserved, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D was completed due to the entrustment of the provisional disposition registration pursuant to the above decision.

3) On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit against D with the Daejeon District Court’s official branch office 2015Kadan365 to preserve the claim for the return of the lease deposit against D regarding the instant building. The Plaintiff was subject to the revocation of the transfer contract between D and E under the name of the building permit for the instant building. However, the lower court ( Daejeon District Court 2015Na6812) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2016Da7692).