1. The Defendant, at the Daegu District Court of 2015j.143, Doldong, Inc.

1. Determination as to the claim

A. There is no dispute between the parties, or according to Gap evidence Nos. 18 through 22 (including each number), and Gap evidence Nos. 28 and 29, the following facts are acknowledged. Comprehensively taking into account the facts, the plaintiff may claim ownership against the defendant as a mortgagee against Nos. 2 and 450 of the attached list of movables attached to the attachment list, and seek the exclusion of compulsory execution as described in the order, barring any other circumstances.

(1) On April 9, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order with the Daegu District Court 2015Da143 against Maci-gun District Court 2015Da143 (hereinafter “debtor”), and received a payment order from the above court on April 22, 2015, stating that “The obligor shall pay to the Defendant 410,892,000 won and its delay damages.”

(2) On June 2, 2015, the Defendant, based on the above payment order, executed a seizure of movable property against the instant person (No. 2015No. 2029).

(3) On September 28, 2010, the Plaintiff drafted a credit loan agreement with the obligor and the Plaintiff, etc. to lend USD 30,000,000 in total to the obligor and the Plaintiff, etc. (CREDIT FACITRIS AEMNT) and a credit loan agreement with the obligor and the Plaintiff, etc. to lend USD 20,000 in total to the obligor on December 22, 2011 (CREDICICITRALIS AEENT) as an agency for the said bank (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”).

(hereinafter “each of the instant credit agreements”). (4) The Plaintiff et al., etc., included the instant over-the-spot in accordance with each of the instant credit agreements between the debtor and the debtor around September 28, 2010 and December 22, 2011.