2. The defendant shall set up one-eight percent of each of the real estate stated in the attached Table list to small and medium C.

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty C with the Seoul Central District Court 2015da5217839, and sentenced that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 58,802,442 won and 33,889,149 won with interest of 17% per annum from June 30, 2015 to the day of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On April 4, 2005, C entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on a maximum debt amount of KRW 240,000,000 with respect to each immovable indicated in the separate sheet, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage by the Gwangju District Court No. 24729, Apr. 4, 2005.

C. On the other hand, on January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff’s successor to the Plaintiff as to C.

On March 30, 2018, the claims were transferred and notified to C of the assignment of the claims.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the plaintiff's lawsuit

A. Whether a creditor’s right to the debtor exists to be preserved by subrogation in a creditor subrogation lawsuit is a matter of ex officio investigation by the court. As such, the court is obligated to verify the existence of a preserved claim by further deliberation and investigation ex officio if any circumstances are discovered to suspect the existence of the preserved claim after examining all the litigation materials presented to the court. If there is no preserved claim as a result of the examination, the creditor subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da3234 Decided April 23, 2009). B.

On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an oral application for withdrawal from a lawsuit on the date of pleading on September 20, 2018, but did not obtain the Defendant’s consent to withdrawal, as well as the withdrawal from a lawsuit, and thus, it is not recognized that withdrawal is void.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is legitimate.