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

A. The Plaintiff, from around November 2007, operated a store in the Seoul Jung-gu E or Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, with the trade name “D”, was the owner of the G land and the ground building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The instant real estate was leased to Nonparty H from November 2007 and used as a restaurant (I).

B. The Plaintiff was filed a lawsuit for the delivery of the building on the F household store in Gangdong-gu Seoul with a rent-free company, etc., and purchased each of the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant household”) from around March 2012 while running the instant real estate as a household store (hereinafter “instant household store”) with the H’s consent, and stored them in the instant real estate.

C. On September 26, 2012, the Defendants received the instant real estate from J real estate auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer (Defendant B’s share 51/100, Defendant C’s share 49/100) in the instant case.

In the auction procedure of the said real estate, H did not deliver the instant real estate by asserting a lien equivalent to KRW 550 million based on the structural construction cost, etc., the Defendants filed a lawsuit against H to the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent (this Court Order 2012Gadan52448). On October 31, 2012, H & K as the obligor, and as the obligor, as the claim claim for return of unjust enrichment (30,000,000 won), and executed the decision on the provisional seizure of corporeal movables (this Court Order 2012Kadan6914) on November 6, 2012 as to part of the instant households.

The non-party L who participated in the execution is one of its own goods, and the president of the household store of this case was H.

E. The Defendants received an order to deliver real estate against the Plaintiff, H, K, and L (this Court 2012: 4768; 2012: 559; 2013. 341, 2013. 94) on February 21, 2013; and the enforcement officer kept the instant household in custody of the Defendants.

F. The plaintiff is likely to enforce compulsory execution by other creditors.