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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On December 31, 2010, the Defendant established a maximum debt amount of 114,00,000,000 won with respect to the buildings indicated in the separate sheet from B, and the collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) with respect to the debtor B and the mortgagee, and completed the establishment registration of the collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”). The Defendant completed the establishment of the collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the Suwon District Court Branch of Sung-nam Branch of the Suwon District Court as of December 31, 2010, as of December 31, 201

B. On September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) leased all the second floor (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet from B, as security deposit of KRW 15 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 300,000; and (c) from September 4, 2012 to September 4, 2015 (36 months); (c) around that time, the instant commercial building was handed over; and (d) registered as a business operator in the Echeon Tax Office with the trade name “C” on October 23, 2013.

C. On December 6, 2013, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (U.S. Branch D) based on the instant collateral security, and received a decision to commence auction from the above court on December 9, 2013. In the auction procedure, the said court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 13,50,000 to the lessee (small amount, commercial building) and the lessee (small amount, commercial building) and the lessee (small amount, commercial building) Co., Ltd., Ltd. (small amount, commercial building) KRW 13,50,00,00 to the lessee (small amount, commercial building) and the Siion-si Co., Ltd. (Small amount, commercial building) to the Hanam-si, Inc., Ltd., Ltd., 13,119,150, Defendant 1,285,674,080, respectively.

Meanwhile, in the above auction procedure, the completion period for the demand for distribution prescribed by the above court is up to February 13, 2014, and the plaintiff reported a right to the above court and made a demand for distribution on February 24, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap's evidence 1 to 5, 7 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The payment of dividends pursuant to the distribution schedule which became final and conclusive by the plaintiff's assertion 1 does not confirm the rights under substantive law. Thus, in case where a person who is liable to receive dividends receives dividends without receiving them, the said person has received them.