1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,139,424 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 29, 2014 to July 15, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for an auction for the exercise of the security right to the Goyang-gu District Court Dayang-dong District Court C with respect to the land of Goyang-dong District on the basis of the right to collateral security. Accordingly, on June 3, 2013, the auction procedure commenced on June 3, 2013.

B. The Defendant, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security (2013Gahap7554), and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2013 with the same court (2013Kaga974) to suspend the auction procedure and received the decision of acceptance on September 2, 2013.

C. On August 23, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment of dismissal on August 21, 2014 in the first instance court of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security registration, and the appeal and appeal were all dismissed (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na44330 and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da3830).

The auction procedure for exercising the above security right was suspended for 353 days from September 3, 2013 to August 21, 2014, which was the date of the first instance judgment from September 3, 2013.

E. The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 375,121,241 on December 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff, as to the establishment of tort, seek damages against the Defendant due to the suspension of the auction procedure.

On the other hand, while the auction procedure was in progress for exercising the security right based on the right to collateral security, if the debtor files a lawsuit against the creditor seeking the cancellation of the registration of creation of a collateral on the basis of this lawsuit, and accordingly, the provisional disposition under Article 507 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is equivalent to the lawsuit for objection against the claim under Article 505 of the same Act, was suspended due to the provisional disposition suspending the auction procedure, and the judgment against the debtor was subsequently rendered and conclusive, the legal relation is the execution of the unfair preservative measure.