1. The Defendant:

A. Based on the collection preservation order for B, C, D, and E by the Incheon District Court 2014 early 1941, July 23, 2014.

1. The following facts of recognition are not in dispute between the parties, or may be admitted in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 15, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

Pursuant to Articles 6(1) and 8 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption Property, and Articles 52(1) and 53(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, Etc., prosecutor G of Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office filed a claim for the preservation for collection of 1029/1137 shares out of 1137 square meters in the name of the Plaintiff at the time the Plaintiff was aware of his/her identity (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 18, 2014, the above court issued a preservation order for collection by the Incheon District Court on July 18, 2014 upon the prosecutor’s request, and on July 23, 2014, upon the prosecutor’s execution of the preservation order for collection, the registration of provisional seizure in the name of the Defendant was completed with respect to the Plaintiff’s share 1029/1137 of the instant land.

B. The prosecutor G of Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office also re-written the Plaintiff’s claim for the preservation for the collection of 1029/1137 shares of the instant land under the Plaintiff’s name to preserve the additional collection charges against the Defendant C, D, and E, and the said court accepted the prosecutor’s claim partially, and issued the Incheon District Court’s order of preservation for the collection on August 1, 2014. The prosecutor’s order of preservation for the collection was issued on August 7, 2014 with respect to the portion of 2058/1137 shares, which is part of the Plaintiff’s 1029/1137 of the instant land.

2. The property of the defendant subject to an order of preservation for collection on the market does not necessarily need to be the property under the name of the defendant, and the property substantially belongs to the defendant, but in order to consider that a certain property belongs to the defendant, the property shall be determined by comprehensively considering the relation between the name of the defendant and the defendant, the reasons why the property is owned, the source of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2009Mo471, Jun. 25, 2009). Such a legal doctrine.