A. The plaintiff's provisional attachment registration and the registration of the establishment of the defendant's neighboring mortgage registration 1) B of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building 205 Dong 1402 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case")

As to the instant mortgage, the Seoul Central District Court’s registration number No. 215401, Sept. 2, 2013, (201; 1,000,000 won with maximum debt amount; and 2,000,000 won with respect to the obligor B and the Defendant’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant

(2) On the other hand, according to the Seoul Western District Court Order 2014Kadan50375 on the instant real estate, the provisional attachment registration for the Plaintiff was completed on February 27, 2014 with the claim amounting to KRW 18,000,000 and the provisional attachment registration for the Plaintiff was completed.

B. 1) On January 16, 2014, the auction procedure was initiated on the instant real estate at the creditor bank’s request. 2) At the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff, as a person holding a provisional attachment, claimed a distribution of KRW 18,000,000 for each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,000,000 as a person holding a second-class right, and the Defendant, as a second-class mortgagee, made a demand for distribution of KRW 750,027 (4.17%) on February 12, 2015, on the date of distribution of the said auction procedure, the court held that the Defendant distributed each of the dividends of KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff on the date of distribution of the said auction procedure (1,00,000,000 (100% of the dividend rate) as indicated in the attached Table.

3) On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff stated an objection against the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 1,00,000,000 as well as Korea Bank and Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on February 17, 2015. (C) On February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for revocation of the fraudulent act with the purport that the instant mortgage contract should be revoked because it would prejudice the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement. The specific progress of the said lawsuit is as follows.

Whether the court's case number is appealed from the proceedings.