1. A distribution schedule prepared by the said court on October 31, 2013 with respect to the Incheon District Court C and D (Dual) auction of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. The E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is a company established for the purpose of real estate development and consulting. around January 10, 201, F took office as the representative director of the foregoing company and G as an auditor. The Defendant is omitted from G.

B. On January 5, 2011, regarding the first floor of the H building No. 402-163 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the F, the registration of creation of a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) was completed on January 5, 201 with regard to the creditor, the debtor, the F, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000.

C. On November 16, 2010, F agreed to pay 75,000,000 won per annum to the Plaintiff’s remainder of loan plus interest of 25% until June 30, 2011. As a security, on July 12, 2011, F completed the registration of creation of a right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 90,000,000 for the instant building.

On October 31, 2013, the court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 200,000,000, the maximum debt amount, and KRW 8,427,588 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) to the Defendant, at the request of the creditor, the Plaintiff, and the Han Bank, as the Incheon District Court C, and D (Dupl) regarding the instant building.

E. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 132,759,912 out of the Defendant’s dividend amount, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on November 6, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the distribution of dividends against the Defendant based on the instant right of collateral security was unlawful, since the instant right of collateral security was based on false claims and thus null and void as it is based on false representation of agreement.

(2) As to this, the Defendant is a corporation I (hereinafter “I”) and a sales agency business.