1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on October 31, 201 between D and Defendant A.

1. Basic facts

A. D concluded, on October 31, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which was owned by the Defendant A, a contract to establish the right to collateral security, which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 220,000,00 with the Defendant A, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 205,000,00 with the Defendant C, respectively (hereinafter “each of the instant mortgages contract”), and completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “each of the instant apartment”).

B. On April 18, 2014, at the request of the Plaintiff, who is a provisional seizure creditor with the original copy of the judgment regarding the apartment of this case owned D, the auction procedure for real estate was initiated on April 18, 2014, under the Seoul Northern District Court E, and the F. of the Seoul Northern District Court (Duplicate) on August 27, 2014, upon the request of the new bank, a mortgagee, a collateral security

C. During the above auction procedure, the court of execution shall distribute the amount of KRW 617,459,253 to the Defendant C, who is a mortgagee, to Escar Savings Bank in the order of 518,740,99, and 518,436,410, and 4164 to the Defendant C, who is a mortgagee, in the same order of 50,436,410, and 46,564 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor.

On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the entire amount of the Defendants’ dividends.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff obligor D concluded each of the instant mortgage contracts even though the secured obligation was nonexistent or extinguished in excess of the obligation. Even if the secured obligation exists, each of the instant mortgage contracts granting preferential payment right to the Defendants, a part of the creditors, constitutes a speculative act, and the Defendants are also subject to the Defendants.