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

A. In relation to the Plaintiff, D, E, and C, Nonparty F, and 16 lots of land owned by Jincheon-gun G, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, and 16 lots of land, the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security (260 million won), which is the Cheongju Credit Union, and the 200 million won of the maximum debt amount, were set in the order of 1st priority, and the 3rd priority of the maximum debt amount (750 million won of the maximum debt amount).

(2) Meanwhile, the Cheongju District Court H with regard to the above real estate, and the Plaintiff’s husband, in order to recover the Plaintiff’s claim even if, on July 5, 201, 201, the third sale date of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff’s husband stated that the Plaintiff will make a bid in the name of the Plaintiff at KRW 1.56 billion to the DogD around July 5, 201, which was the third sale date, and the network required that the Plaintiff will make a bid at KRW 1.82 billion and that the Plaintiff will not make a bid to the said I.

(3) After all, the network D submitted a bid list stating the bid price of 1,380,000 won in the above auction procedure, which was invalidated on the ground that it falls short of the minimum price.

(4) Ultimately, at the above auction procedure, J and K bid for KRW 1.3775 million, and the highest price buyer was awarded the said real estate upon obtaining a decision of permission for sale on July 12, 201 from the above court as the highest price buyer, and the Plaintiff was paid only KRW 132,614,469 in the above auction procedure.

(5) Meanwhile, the network D died on January 16, 2012, and Nonparty E, his wife, and his other children and the co-inheritors were co-inheritors. On May 11, 2012, the remaining co-inheritors except the above E and C were adjudicated to waive inheritance under the Seoul Family Court 2012-Ma3159, and on May 15, 2012, E and C were adjudicated to accept qualified acceptance by the Seoul Family Court 2012-Ma3160.

(6) Meanwhile, after the death of the network, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E and C seeking compensation for damages on the ground that the network committed a tort against the Plaintiff, such as the above paragraphs (2) and (3), on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act of interfering with bidding against the Plaintiff. The above case is based on the second instance judgment.