1. The foregoing court was prepared on September 1, 2014 in the case of the compulsory auction of real estate in the Gwangju District Court Maritime Branch C and D (Joint Real Estate).

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including each number).

On May 19, 201 between the Plaintiff and E (hereinafter “E”), the Plaintiff and E (hereinafter “E”), a conciliation was concluded, including the content that “E shall pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 160 million per annum from September 1, 201 to the day of full payment, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 1, 201, to the day of full payment,” which is the appellate court of the lawsuit claiming against the Plaintiff an explanation of a building F 323 square meters in the Republic of Korea-do, Jeonnam-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court 2010Na13073.

B. In accordance with the above protocol, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on eight real estate, including the FF 323 square meters, which is owned by E, in accordance with the said protocol, for a compulsory auction on July 24, 2012, the Gwangju District Court Maritime Affairs Croon, and the same court D on August 22, 2012, and two auction cases were jointly conducted.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction”) procedures for compulsory auction conducted upon consolidation as above.

In the auction of this case, the defendant asserted that he had a claim for 407,770,278 won as well as a claim for delay damages (hereinafter referred to as "claim of this case") on the ground of the decision of provisional attachment No. 2012Kadan1045 (decision of October 5, 2012) and the order of payment No. 2010 (decision of October 5, 2012, order of October 5, 2012, order of November 3, 2012, order of November 3, 2012, and the order of payment No. 2012 (decision of October 5, 2012).

However, the preservation bond of the provisional seizure claimed by the defendant and the underlying claim of the payment order are the same.

On September 1, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that pays dividends to the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the same amount as the entries in the following table (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The amount claimed by the parties (unit: unit) dividends (unit of won): Plaintiffs 232,767, 2353,41, 537, 5362, 224.