1. The defendant, on July 2009, has a jurisdiction over the Goyang-gu District Court with respect to D's 699 square meters of land for a factory in Jeonju-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant EEC concluded mediation to the effect that “The E shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70 million until September 25, 2012, and if delay, penalty of KRW 3 million and damages for delay equivalent to KRW 70 million in principal and KRW 70 million shall be paid to the Plaintiff, and the execution with respect to Category C shall be limited to KRW 699 square meters in land for a factory at the time of Pakistan.”

B. The registration relationship with regard to the land D (hereinafter “instant land”) in the case of Pakistan is as follows:

(1) On October 10, 201, the provisional attachment registration entered in accordance with the provisional attachment order issued by the Incheon District Court 201Kadan30427 (4) on October 9, 2012 (5) on July 23, 201, following the registration of the transfer of ownership in C alone due to the division of the common property (2) on July 23, 2009, of the establishment of a mortgage agreement with the debtor C, the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount, and the maximum debt amount of 150 million won (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage of this case”) (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage of this case”) on July 11, 201, on October 10, 201, the Plaintiff’s registration of the establishment of a mortgage (4) under the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in accordance with the provisional attachment order issued by the Plaintiff on October 9, 2012, the debtor’s registration of the establishment of a mortgage under the name of G.16.

C. The EEC did not repay its obligations under the protocol of mediation, but the Plaintiff filed an application for the commencement of compulsory auction with respect to the instant land as stated in B-B’s Paragraph (4) and filed an application for the commencement of compulsory auction on October 9, 2012, but the decision was revoked on February 26, 2013 on the ground that there was no balance between the cost of execution and the first priority in the repayment of the obligation to establish the mortgage of the instant neighboring land.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1215, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff’s lawfulness of the Plaintiff’s subrogation claim is the instant case in subrogation of C in order to preserve his own monetary claim.