1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on February 24, 2014 with respect to the auction of the real estate B in this Court, the above court is against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) owned by Hansung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SIB”), the procedure for the auction of real estate (hereinafter “the instant auction procedure”) was commenced in this court B with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and the Plaintiff, a person holding the provisional seizure of the said real estate, demanded the said court to make a distribution. In allocating the amount of KRW 743,876,745 on February 24, 2014, the executing court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 2,090,800 to the original court (the pertinent tax) and the amount of KRW 743,876,745 to the Defendant, a person holding the provisional seizure of the said real estate, who is the first priority creditor, to whom the second creditor is the 29th creditor of the instant real estate, to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund appeared on the date of the aforementioned distribution, and they raised an objection against the full amount of KRW 91,785,945, which the Defendant received as a mortgagee, respectively. Within one week thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution as the instant lawsuit, and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution as 2014da30987.

C. Meanwhile, on November 25, 2011, at the time of the excess of the obligation, the Hancheon District Court concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the grounds of the instant mortgage agreement (No. 6363, Nov. 25, 201). On the same day, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant mortgage agreement was a fraudulent act, and was ruled against the Defendant by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Ga527605, Seoul District Court Decision 2014Na2018429, which was the appellate court, ruled that the instant mortgage agreement was revoked by recognizing the Defendant as a fraudulent act, and the said appellate judgment became final and conclusive on February 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.