1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 4, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) under which the right to set up the right to collateral security within the scope of KRW 135 million with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the right to receive KRW 135 million per month from the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On November 9, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 135 million and the debtor J (the representative of the defendant company) with respect to the real estate of this case by the Jeonju District Court Branch Branch of the Seoul District Court, No. 22073, Nov. 9, 2007.

C. Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H received part of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security from the Defendant Company or some transfer from the Defendant Company, etc., and completed the supplementary registration of partial transfer of the right to collateral security.

On the other hand, on June 10, 2016, Defendant Republic of Korea seized the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant seizure”). Based on this, Defendant Republic of Korea completed the additional registration in the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case as the Jeonju District Court’s Southern District Court’s Order No. 11608, Jul. 4, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant Company B, C, D, E, F, G, and H: The Defendant Republic of Korea to whom confession is given under the main text of Article 150(3) and the main text of Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act: The absence of any dispute, entry of evidence A1-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The instant contract was automatically terminated on October 3, 2008, and the secured claim of the instant mortgage did not exist from the beginning.

Even if the secured claim of the instant mortgage exists, the statute of limitations expired after the lapse of the ten-year statute of limitations.

Therefore, it is true.