1. The plaintiff

A. As to each portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant B and C, respectively.

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B and C

(a)the reasons for the attachment to the indication of the claim and the changed reasons for the claim;

B. Judgment to recommend confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act against Defendant 1)

C. Judgment by publication (Article 208, Paragraph 3, Item 3 of the Civil Procedure Act against Defendant 3)

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2 of subparagraph 1-2, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage consisting of the debtor D, mortgagee E, the maximum debt amount, 150 million won, as shown in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), as shown in subparagraph 1-1 of the Disposition No. 1-2, is completed. ② The fact that the defendant Republic of Korea seized the above collateral security claim and completed the seizure registration as indicated in subparagraph 1-2 of the Disposition No. 1-2 in order to recover the claim against each of the instant real estate E, and ③ the fact that E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on August 7, 2017, and the defendant B and C inherited the deceased’s property at the ratio of 1/2 of each of the orders

B. The right to collateral security is a mortgage established by settling only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future. Since it is established with a view to securing a certain limit from a settlement term in the future, there must be a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral security separately from the act of establishing the right to collateral security. The burden of proof on whether there was a legal act establishing a secured claim of the right to collateral security at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security exists.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). There is no evidence to deem that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral exists between the deceased and D. There is no evidence to deem that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral exists between the deceased and D.

C. If so, the above seizure registration of Defendant Republic of Korea is complete.