1.With respect to each item listed in the separate sheet Nos. 5 in the table No. 2 list except for the No. 5 known source equipment, to E.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants, as E’s creditors, were executed with respect to each of the items listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as indicated in the Disposition No. 1, based on each of the executive titles listed in the Disposition No. 1, as follows.

Defendant B: Ansan Branch of Suwon District Court on July 28, 2014 2014No3390: Defendant C: Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court on June 12, 2014 : Defendant D on June 12, 2014 : Suwon District Court on May 12, 2014 : Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court on May 12, 2014 20159

B. Meanwhile, as of December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and E have written a written agreement for the transfer of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant agreement for transfer of security”). In lieu of the repayment of the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 150 million against the Plaintiff, E transfers movable property listed in attached Table 1 to the Plaintiff.

However, E’s repayment of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff and this contract is null and void at the same time.

In addition, the ownership of the above movable shall be transferred to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff permits the use of the above movable property to E, and withdraws a civil or criminal complaint against E.

E does not raise any objection even after the Plaintiff disposes of the entire movable property when the repayment of debt by December 30, 2014 is not made.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of parties' assertion on the issues of the instant case

A. Whether the instant security agreement on the issue of the instant case is valid, and the owner of the subsequent articles

B. Summary of the party's assertion 1 Plaintiff below

3.2

Inasmuch as the instant security agreement is valid as stated in the attached Table 2, each of the items listed in the attached Table 2 is the Plaintiff’s ownership.

Therefore, compulsory execution by the Defendants against the Plaintiff’s property should not be permitted.

2. The defendant D is not only a person in the relationship of marriage with F, a representative director of E, but also the above person.

1.(a)

In the course of compulsory enforcement, Defendant D failed to submit a transfer contract, even though he/she demanded several transfers.

Therefore, the plaintiff does not have a claim against E, and is fake to E.