1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Defendant’s lease agreement between B and the Defendant on September 18, 2010 is based.

1. Basic facts

A. B is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Defendant is the pro-friendly type B.

B. On November 9, 2010, the Gyeonggi Savings Bank Co., Ltd. extended KRW 1,330,000,000 to B on November 9, 2010, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the instant real estate on November 9, 2010, under the Seoul Central District Court registry No. 68103, Dec. 9, 2010.

C. On September 19, 201, the Seoul Central District Court C of Seoul Central District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant real estate upon the application of the Gyeonggi Savings Bank Co., Ltd., and the present voluntary auction procedure is in progress.

On the other hand, the lease contract was made between the Defendant and B on September 18, 2010, stating that KRW 500 million of the lease deposit and the period from October 18, 2010 to KRW 36 months, and the Defendant completed the move-in report as of October 28, 2010.

E. On May 22, 2013, the Defendant asserted the right to lease (the lease date September 18, 2010, the lease deposit amount, KRW 500 million) regarding the instant real estate during the said voluntary auction procedure, and filed a report on the right and an application for demand for distribution.

F. On July 1, 2013, Gyeonggi Savings Bank Co., Ltd. was declared bankrupt on July 1, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap88, and the Plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim B and the Defendant, in collusion, concluded a false lease agreement for the purpose of evading compulsory execution equivalent to the claim for return of deposit for lease, and the above lease agreement constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy and becomes null and void pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Defendant’

B. The defendant's assertion is a business in the real estate of this case.