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

A. The Plaintiff received a successful bid in the F real estate auction procedure and paid the sale price in full and acquired the ownership of the instant real estate owned by E.

B. Defendant A, a construction business operator, completed the interior works of the instant real estate in accordance with the construction contract concluded with E, and Defendant A, a construction business operator, filed an application for payment order against E, claiming for the construction cost of KRW 30 million and its delay damages.

On December 20, 2011, the order of payment was issued by the ASEAN District Court 201j1326, the ASEAN District Court 201, the order of payment was finalized on January 17, 2012.

C. Defendant B, an electrical construction business operator, filed an application with E for a payment order claiming construction cost of KRW 44 million and its delay damages upon completion of the instant electrical construction works in accordance with the construction contract concluded with E.

On December 20, 2011, the order of payment was issued by the ASEAN District Court 201j1325, the ASEAN District Court 201, the order of payment was finalized on January 19, 2012.

On November 28, 2013, Defendant A and B reported the above payment order in the auction procedure of the above real estate on a lien with the secured obligation, and they occupy the instant real estate by asserting the lien until now.

E. On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate in KRW 2.5 billion to C and D for the same year.

3. 10. Each 1/2 portion completed the registration of ownership transfer.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is legitimate or not is asserted by the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff did not receive the balance of KRW 1.4 billion from C and D as preserved bonds, and thus, the Plaintiff’s exercise the right to claim delivery based on his ownership. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had the above balance claim against C and D solely with the statement of No. 5.