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

A. Of the 1,564 square meters prior to B in Jeonbuk-gun, B, C, the 1,256 square meters prior to C, and 1,402 square meters prior to D, each of the 666/1,27 equity shares was owned by E (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On July 13, 2005, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with regard to each of the said shares was completed with regard to the mortgagee, the Defendant, the debtor, the maximum debt amount, 385,00,000 won.

B. On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s trade name”) was determined to seize and collect the Defendant’s claims against the Defendant E as the obligor, the third obligor E, the claimed amount of KRW 3,167,248,376, under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2015TT2280.

C. On July 7, 2015, at the request of the Plaintiff, there was a voluntary decision to commence the auction at the Jeonju District Court A case in the Jeonju District Court Branch A (hereinafter “instant auction case”).

On September 24, 2015, the Defendant’s Intervenor received the order of seizure and collection as to the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant F, the garnishee F, the owner E, the claim amount of KRW 1,990,041,351 from the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2015TTTT2205, and submitted the application for the report of rights and the demand for distribution on January 15, 2016.

E. On May 12, 2016, in the instant auction case, a distribution schedule was formulated with the content that the Defendant distributes to the Defendant KRW 59,780,163, the total amount to be distributed out of the proceeds from the sale of the instant real estate.

F. On May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution of the instant auction case.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap Nos. 1- 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion was issued a seizure and collection order after the date of commencement of the auction order, which is the closing date of the request for distribution, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the distribution was not an interested party entitled to receive distribution in the instant auction case, but the seizure was concurrent. Therefore, the entire