1. It is confirmed that the movable property listed in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff and the primary Defendant A and B is owned by the Plaintiff.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2008, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 2 billion to D on April 1, 2008 with interest rate of KRW 12% per annum. In order to secure the above loan, D created a collateral security right on movable property listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant movable property”) in which D and H possessed by D and H, with the trade name “E golf practice range”, for the purpose of securing the above loan, the maximum debt amount of KRW 2.8 billion was registered for the registration of establishment of the instant golf practice range (hereinafter “instant golf practice range”).

B. On September 11, 2008, Defendant C lent 450 million won to D with interest rate of 36% per annum. As to the instant golf driving range, Defendant C completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the second priority of the maximum debt amount of 600 million won with respect to the instant golf driving range, and as D delayed payment of interest on the said loan, Defendant C seized the instant movables with Suwon District Court No. 2011760, No. 1319, Nov. 28, 201 by an executory deed No. 1319, No. 1348, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 1348, Jun. 28, 2011, and accordingly, the compulsory auction procedure for the instant movables was initiated.

(hereinafter “Procedure for Compulsory Auction”). C.

On January 4, 2012, Defendant C was awarded a successful bid of KRW 623 billion for the instant movable property in the said compulsory auction procedure, and on January 11, 2012, Defendant C paid KRW 600 million for the instant movable property by means of offsetting the claim of KRW 600 million against D with the claim of KRW 600 million as an automatic bond, and paid the remainder of KRW 23 million.

On January 16, 2012, Defendant C sold the instant movable property at KRW 623 billion to Defendant A, and Defendant A sold the instant movable property to Defendant B on February 13, 2012, and offset the claim for the purchase price of the said movable property against Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B, but Defendant B again transferred the instant movable property to Defendant A on September 6, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] As to Defendant A and B: