1. Lawsuits between the Plaintiff and Defendant D are final and conclusive on May 11, 2018 of this Court’s ruling of recommending reconciliation.

1. On May 11, 2018, this Court rendered a ruling to recommend reconciliation to the Plaintiff and Defendant D on the action against Defendant D, and the fact that the Plaintiff received each service of the said ruling of recommending reconciliation on May 17, 2018 and May 16, 2018 and the fact that Defendant D did not raise an objection is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant D was terminated on June 1, 2018 when two weeks passed since the decision of recommending reconciliation was served.

2. Claim against Defendant B and C

A. Indication of claim: The pertinent part of the claim in the separate sheet is identical to the above Defendants.

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment on deemed confessions (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, and judgment by service by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Defendant C);

3. The facts of the reasons for the claim against the defendant Republic of Korea, as stated in the separate sheet of claim No. 1, 2, and Ma1, shall be acknowledged by the parties, or by the purport of the whole pleadings.

In case where a claim with a right to collateral security is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the right to collateral security by means of supplementary registration in the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security is to publicly announce the seizure of the right to collateral security because the seizure of the right to collateral security has become effective even in the right to collateral security, which is a subordinate right upon the accompanying nature of the right to collateral security if the right to collateral security is seized. If there is no right to collateral security, the seizure order shall be null and void, and if the right to collateral security is cancelled, the third party with a interest in the registration shall express

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da70041 Decided May 28, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.). In contrast, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage by the Defendant C should be cancelled upon the completion of the extinctive prescription of the secured claim. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea did not complete the extinctive prescription by entering into a lawsuit between Defendant D and G.