207Kahap26 Disposition of Prohibition of Business Operation

1. this** (**************************

********************)*

Creditors' Address** Si*Gu** Dong** apartment*

Creditors' Attorney Park*

1.******* Company*

**** Dong*******

* Representative Director**

2.*******74

***************

Maximum*

3.*** (********************))

Seoul**** Dong***-****

Seoul**Gu** Dong* Dong***

Debtor's Attorney Kim*

June 27, 2007

1. The motion of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the obligees.

The debtor shall not engage in soup and soup business within each real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records, the following facts are substantiated.

(a)****** Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as '*') on December 21, 2004 ***** of the debtor on December 21, 204

The work price shall be KRW 3.85 billion between the parties, and the debtor*** the attached list owned by the parties

To make soup and making soup within each real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case").

The contract for work was concluded.

(b)**** Construction bears the obligation to borrow a loan of KRW 1.2 billion against obligee******,

in order to secure the debt of the above loan, the joint and several obligations of the loan in respect of the building of this case

As witness***** The registration of the right to claim ownership transfer which has been completed in the name of the obligees is transferred to the obligees.

and with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4 and 5 of the instant building, April 2005

1. Creditor*** As regards real estate mentioned in paragraphs 1 through 3 of the same list, 205.

12.2. 22. Creditors*********) complete the transfer registration of each provisional registration in the future.

(c) The debtor***, debtor************** a company that has succeeded to the construction from the debtor.

The debtor******* Construction only) on September 29, 2005 **** on debtor*******

The debtor******* The payment of 1.6 billion won out of the work price to the creditor**** in preference to the payment.

was drawn up with the agreement, and again, creditors and debtors*** on Dec. 2, 2005

23. The following agreements were made (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”).

(1) The debtor**** on the basis of each provisional registration completed as described in paragraph (b) above with respect to the building of this case.

The registration of ownership transfer has been completed, and the purchase price is paid to debtor*** this creditor***

1.6 billion won shall be replaced by one billion won, and all the expenses incurred under the sales contract shall be borne by all.

(2) The creditors shall obtain loans from financial institutions after they have completed the registration of transfer in their names.

After collecting claims ****** Re-ownership to a designated person.

The registration is completed.

D. According to the agreement of this case, the obligees have completed provisional registration under their names.

On December 29, 2005, each registration of transfer of ownership was completed, and on the ground that prior mortgage exists.

When additional loans secured by the building of this case were impossible, the obligees shall be held on August 16, 2006.

I *** The instant case in accordance with the manner of attribution settlement in the event of default in urging to repay a debt to **

Notice that a building should be owned by the obligees, and on November 15, 2006, an obligor***, as the case may be, to the obligor.

The appraised value of November 1, 2006 at the rate of 3,549,144,398,100,000 won as of November 1, 2006

731,144,398 additional payments of the balance after the deduction. A notice of the settlement amount was given

The notification reached around November 16, 2006.

(e) debtor**** Construction is soup and soup in the instant building that the debtor****

The construction has been completed, and the debtor*****************

(c) The debtor** runs a business after filing a business report in the name of **.

2. Existence of preserved rights

A. Creditor's assertion

*** The obligees' claim amount against the obligees' obligor** the obligees' 1.6 billion won under the agreement of this case, tax and public charges of 194 billion won, public charges and public charges incurred in the principal registration of the building of this case, 1.673 million won in aggregate of the amount subrogated for senior mortgage debts on the building of this case under the obligees' names, 68 million won in subrogation for the above senior mortgage debts on the above substitute loan, 3.55 billion won in aggregate of all expenses related to the above substitute loan, and 12 million won in substitute loan, which exceeds 2.88 billion won in value of the building of this case *** the obligor's settlement amount to the obligor * the obligor * the obligor * the settlement amount to the obligor * the settlement amount to be paid to * the obligor * the settlement amount of the total amount to be paid to the obligor * the settlement of the claim amount of the above building * the obligees's business interests are already notified * the obligor's business interests are already known * the above.

B. Determination

In light of the circumstances up to the agreement of this case and the amount of claims, it is reasonable to view that the completion of the registration of ownership transfer by creditors in the future of the building of this case is aimed at securing creditors' claims, not merely for loans.

However, in order to settle accounts for attribution as stipulated in the Act on the Participation in Provisional Registration, a security interest holder may obtain full ownership of an object after completing the settlement period after the expiration of the settlement period (Article 3(1)), and notify the execution thereof (Article 4(1)), (3) after the expiration of the liquidation period for two months from the expiration of the liquidation period (Article 4(1)), and (4) after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer (Article 4(2) and (3) after the delivery of an object (Article 4(3). On the other hand, in the case of both Do bonds, the creditors have acquired ownership of an object 4(1) after the completion of the settlement period (Article 4(1) of the AO), and in the case of the same Do bonds, the creditors have not yet obtained ownership of the object 4(2) and thus, the creditors have not yet arrived at the date of repayment of the loan of this case.

The obligees asserted that the agreement is null and void because it is impossible for the obligees to receive additional loan on security because the appraisal value of the building of this case is merely 2.8 billion won, but there is insufficient evidence to prove that the additional loan on security of the building of this case is impossible. Thus, the obligees' above assertion cannot be accepted (On the other hand, according to records, the appraisal is expected to increase the appraisal value compared to the amount of the plaintiff's assertion if the appraisal is conducted in accordance with the letter and the situation where the construction work for the building of this case is completed, and the amount of the substitute loan claimed by the obligees is only the burden on the building of this case, and it is difficult to view it as the secured claim itself under the agreement of this case).

Furthermore, even if there is a need for preservation, it is difficult to view that, as alleged by the obligees, there is a possibility that the legal relationship will become complicated by leasing the building in this case to another person, and solely on the ground that there is a possibility that the legal relationship would become complicated, there is a concern that the creditors may incur irrecoverable damages if the business of the debtors is not prohibited. Such a problem is determined to be sufficiently resolved through the principal lawsuit. Therefore, in this regard, the obligees’ assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the obligees' motion of this case is dismissed because it is not sufficient to vindicate that there is the right to preserve and the necessity of preservation.

June 27, 2007

J. (Presiding Judge)

J**

Kim*