1. In the Cheongju District Court D D D real estate auction case, the defendant as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon the application of the National Bank Co., Ltd., which is a collateral security right, an auction procedure was commenced for each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Co., Ltd. (Cheongju District Court D). The Plaintiff acquired the collateral secured by the collateral security right from the National Bank.

(hereinafter referred to as “E”, each of the above real estate “E”, “instant real estate”, and “instant auction” (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction”). (B)

On March 13, 2014, Defendant A submitted a report on the right of retention to the auction court of this case, stating that “The instant real estate was leased and occupied from E, and the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation cost of KRW 33,70,000,000, real estate lease deposit money of KRW 30,000,000, and the house fixtures cost of KRW 56,90,000,00 and has the right of beneficial or necessary reimbursement.”

(A) No. 2-1, c.

On March 13, 2014, Defendant B and C submitted a report on the right of retention to the instant auction court on March 13, 2014, stating that “Although they invested KRW 250,000,000 for the purpose of operating a factory to deliver products to E to the instant real estate, they failed to receive the price, they occupy the instant real estate with the inventory of all the machinery and equipment inside the factory and bio-produced production data as a lien holder.”

(A) Evidence Nos. 2-2 ( grounds for recognition) / [the grounds for recognition] / [the entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The assertion by Defendant C, which caused the claim

1.(c)

Confirmation of the absence of a lien stated in the subsection

B. On November 7, 2014, Defendant C submitted a written statement to the effect that he/she would accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of the Acts (amended by Presidential Decree No. 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the same Act, but on April 1, 2015, Defendant C appointed an attorney F as a legal representative, and attorney F resigned on April 16, 2015.

In light of the above circumstances, the document dated November 7, 2014 was not deemed to be a statement on the date of pleading, but the defendant C was not a statement on the date of pleading.