1. Korea Land and Housing Corporation’s deposit with Daejeon District Court Branch No. 1954, Jul. 26, 2013 as 154, 414.

【Claims against Defendant B, C, D, G, and H】

1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;

2. Judgment on deeming confessions: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (the part concerning claims against Defendant E and Defendant F).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the Defendants (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the designated parties, and the designated parties received each transfer of the bonds, provisional seizure, seizure and collection order, seizure and all orders, as shown in the attached Table, as to all or some of the reserved bonds of KRW 154,414,046 against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “the reserved bonds of this case”).

B. On July 26, 2013, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation issued a notice of multiple assignment of claims, and, on the grounds that the provisional attachment, seizure, collection order, assignment order, etc. conflict with each other, made a mixed deposit of KRW 154,414,046 at the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon District Court Branch No. 1954 in 2013, by designating new L&C Co., Ltd, Defendant B, C, and the Plaintiff as the principal deposit.

(hereinafter “instant deposit”). 【The ground for recognition of the instant deposit, the fact that there is no dispute, the entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a claim of legal doctrine was transferred twice, the order between the assignee should not be determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor’s perception of the assignment of claim, i.e., the notification of the transfer with the fixed date, or by the prior date of the acceptance of the debtor.

This legal doctrine is likewise applicable to cases where a person who executed an order of provisional seizure on the same claim as the assignee of the claim determines the heat between the person who executed the order of provisional seizure. Thus, the order of priority should be determined by the notification of assignment of claims with a fixed date and the notification of provisional seizure decision by the third obligor (in the

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24223 delivered on April 26, 1994).