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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against J and G, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap506882, and filed a claim for reimbursement, etc., and on July 13, 2012, “G andJ jointly and severally rendered a judgment with the said court to the Plaintiff as to KRW 107,085,870, and KRW 106,817,444 from October 24, 2011 to March 27, 2012, and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.” The said judgment was finalized on August 2, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”).

On September 20, 2012, the Defendant lent KRW 20,000,00 to J. In order to secure the above loan claims, on October 2, 201 of the same year, concluded a mortgage agreement with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with a mortgagee, debtor J., and maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On the same day, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage in accordance with Article 93789, which was the receipt of the branch court of Suwon District on the same day.

C. On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction based on the final judgment of the instant case, and the procedure for compulsory auction on the instant apartment was initiated in Suwon District Court C and D (Dupl).

In distributing the amount of KRW 271,465,139 out of the proceeds of sale on January 22, 2014, the execution court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 11,715,625 to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, and to the Plaintiff, who is an applicant creditor, the applicant creditor, respectively (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The Plaintiff appeared on the distribution date, and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant out of the instant distribution schedule, and raised an objection to the instant lawsuit on January 24, 2014.

E. Meanwhile, on May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) against the Defendant on the ground that the instant mortgage contract was null and void as a result of false conspiracy or constitutes a fraudulent act; (b) as the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2013da103971, May 1, 2013.