A. The Dongbu Housing Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongbu Housing Construction”) entered into a pledge agreement on the instant deposit claim against the Plaintiff on April 14, 2009, with the maturity of April 14, 2010 as of April 14, 201, the total amount of KRW 169,210,000 deposit claims (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”) on April 14, 201 as of April 14, 209, and on the same day, the Defendant consented to the said pledge with the certificate with a fixed date.

B. As to the instant deposit claim, creditors of the housing construction were issued a seizure and collection order as follows, and the above claim seizure and collection order, etc. have reached the Defendant between August 29, 2013 and November 20, 2014.

On August 29, 2013, August 2014, 2014, B 60,000, Incheon Jung-gu Office for the collection and seizure of claims B 60,775,897, and C 3,775,897, the provisional seizure on October 17, 2014, as of August 26, 2014, the date of service of the creditor's claim amount A (Appointed Party) 42,253,563,863, which is classified as the date of service of the creditor's claim amount. The disposition for arrears is taken on April 20, 2014, Incheon Jung-gu Office for the collection and seizure of claims B 60,000,000,0000,000.

C. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 336,996,00 to the council of occupants' representatives of the original Eastern Housing; on December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to enforce the pledge on the basis of the claim for indemnity against the housing construction.

On February 23, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 182,159,969 pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act due to concurrent crimes, such as seizure, etc., by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015, the Defendant filed a report on the reason for deposit. On March 16, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for correction of the certificate of deposit additionally adding the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, who is the pledgee, was omitted at the time of the above execution deposit. However, the said court rendered a decision on non-acceptance.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant applied for the withdrawal of the reason for deposit on account of erroneous deposit, and the above court filed a report on the reason for deposit as of February 23, 2015.