1. Cheongju District Court shall authorize the final claim inspection judgment of 2013 Preamble14 dated January 2, 2014.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2011, Defendant B borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, and concluded a mortgage contract with respect to the land for a factory in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-do, with a total of KRW 100 million as the secured claim, on the basis that the total amount of KRW 80 million incurred in the existing transaction was KRW 7,384.3 square meters of land for a factory, E, land for a factory, KRW 6,544 square meters, and F, KRW 5,63.7 square meters of land for a F, which was owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and concluded a mortgage contract with respect to the instant real estate on the following day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment

(hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”). B.

After that, on February 20, 2013, Defendant B filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings with the Cheongju District Court 2013Ma2, and received a decision on commencement of rehabilitation proceedings on April 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”); and the Plaintiff submitted a security right and a claim registration statement based on the instant mortgage as KRW 100 million in the instant rehabilitation procedure. The Plaintiff filed an objection against all of the rehabilitation security rights and rehabilitation claims reported by the Plaintiff, and filed an application for a final decision on completion of rehabilitation proceedings with the Cheongju District Court 2013Ma14.

C. On January 2, 2014, the Cheongju District Court rendered a final and conclusive judgment on the rehabilitation proceedings No. 2013-14, that “The Plaintiff’s act of setting up a collateral against KRW 80 million, excluding KRW 20 million newly borrowed at the time of the establishment of the instant collateral security right, is a collateral for the existing obligation after the suspension of payment, and thus, it may be denied pursuant to Article 100(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “the Debtor Rehabilitation Act”),” on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security right against Defendant B against the Defendant, can be denied pursuant to Article 100(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The cause of the action.