1. The first instance judgment, including a claim that has been reduced or expanded by this court, shall be amended as follows:

Attached List.

1. (i) On May 12, 2016, the Industrial Bank of Korea extended KRW 450 million to B, and completed the joint creation of mortgage with respect to real estate listed in the [Attachment List] Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the real estate owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the title No. 1, 2, and 3 of the attached Table No. 18287, Jun. 12, 2015, the Cheongju District Court completed the joint creation of mortgage with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 540 million, B, and the Industrial Bank of Korea as the mortgagee.

B. Based on the foregoing right to collateral security, the Industrial Bank of Korea filed an application for voluntary auction on the real estate stated in Cheongju District Court Cro (1) with the Cheongju District Court on July 18, 2016, and the decision to commence voluntary auction was completed on the same day.

(hereinafter the above auction procedure is referred to as “instant auction procedure.” The real estate listed in the attached list 4 to 9 was included in the building outside the presentation as part of the auction objects of the instant auction procedure.

Article 12(1) of the Act on the Protection of Asset-Backed Securitization and Protection of Asset-Backed Securitization (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “The right to collateral security shall be transferred to the Plaintiff, a special purpose company, through an asset-backed securitization plan.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a mortgagee of the right to collateral security regarding real estate listed in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3, and is a creditor of the instant auction procedure.

The real estate listed in the attached list 4 through 9 shall also be the object of the auction procedure of this case.

Although the Defendant asserted a lien on the instant real estate, it is difficult to recognize the existence of the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the construction cost and the relation with the instant real estate, and it does not occupy the instant real estate.

Therefore, the plaintiff, as a creditor of the auction procedure of this case, has the interest to confirm that there is no lien against the defendant.