2. The costs of the lawsuit include the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

A. Plaintiff A leased KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and KRW 1,000,000 to ASEAN, Daegu-gu J building 101, and Plaintiff A agreed to pay the lease deposit, etc. to Plaintiff A on June 17, 2015, although Plaintiff A agreed to pay the lease deposit by November 16, 2015, Plaintiff A paid KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 7,000,000, management fee of KRW 3,556,880, and KRW 30,580 by November 16, 2015.

B. Plaintiff B lent a total of KRW 17,00,000 to E between December 19, 2014 and April 2015, but was not repaid.

C. In addition, on September 21, 2015, E completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to F forest No. 2,498 square meters and G forest No. 16,381 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant forests”) in the name of the Defendant joining the Defendant, under Article 31338 of the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu Branch, Daegu District Court Kimcheon-do, as the obligor and the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000,000, and on October 26, 2015, the Defendant completed the additional registration with respect to the registration of establishment of a mortgage transfer under Article 35013 of the Daegu District Court Branch Decision 35013.

Meanwhile, on October 19, 2016, K, the mortgagee of the instant forest, filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu Branch H, Daegu District Court for the auction on the instant forest land. On the date of distribution of the said auction case, the distribution schedule was prepared to receive KRW 71,165,622, the Defendant, the mortgagee of the instant auction case, and the Plaintiffs, the creditor of the provisional seizure, as the creditor

E. However, the instant mortgage contract concluded between E and the Intervenor is null and void as a false conspiracy. Even if a genuine claim exists, E was in excess of the obligation at the time of concluding the instant mortgage contract, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the instant mortgage contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors including the Plaintiffs, and thus, the said distribution schedule should be revoked. Thus, barring any special circumstance, KRW 71,165,622 against the Defendant.