A. On November 19, 2012, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “the Federation”) completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (7) of attached Table 1, with regard to the registration of the establishment of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “the Federation”) of the Korea Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “the Korea Federation”) and “the maximum amount of claims: 2.4 billion won.”

B. On May 12, 2014, the Suhyup filed an application for voluntary auction with respect to the real estate listed in Article 1-7 of the Attached Table No. 1-7 (each building stated in the “out-of-date building” in the attached Table No. 1 appears to be the object of sale in a lump sum unregistered state) based on the foregoing collateral security. On May 13, 2014, upon receipt of the decision to commence the commencement of the sale of real estate from the relevant court on May 14, 2014, the Suhyup filed an application for voluntary auction with the Jung-gu District Court High Court,

On the other hand, on February 5, 2014, our glass Co., Ltd. (B church other creditors) applied for a compulsory auction as D for real estate in the attached list Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the High Court of Suyang Branch D on February 6, 2014 and completed the compulsory auction decision on February 7, 2014.

The above case is in combination with the above case D and currently the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) is in progress.

C. Pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, the Plaintiff acquired a claim against the Suhyup Bridge and the right to collateral security on the instant real estate from the Suhyup.

In the instant auction procedure, around July 2014, the Defendant reported the right of retention to the effect that the Defendant acquired a lien of KRW 2.4 billion as secured claim on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant has a claim for construction cost of KRW 2.4 billion with respect to the instant real estate, but the Defendant did not have a claim for construction cost, and the Defendant did not raise an objection.