1. As to each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall have jurisdiction over the Chuncheon District Court, Dong Sea Registry, June 2009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 22, 2009, the Defendant is the first priority mortgagee who created the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) of KRW 800 million with the debtor D on June 22, 2009, with regard to each immovable property listed in the separate sheet, which was owned byC (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”).

B. On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff is a subordinate mortgagee who established each right to collateral security of KRW 2.4 billion with the debtor D on December 1, 2016, with regard to each of the instant real estate.

C. On November 28, 2016, D completed the registration of transfer of ownership under its name on December 1, 2016 due to the division of property on each of the instant real property.

D The Seoul Western District Court 2016Kahap31626 decided that the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation for the secured obligation under the instant mortgage contract against the Defendant. The Seoul High Court, the appellate court, declared on September 1, 2017, declared that the above secured obligation did not exist, and the Defendant appealed against the order to dismiss the petition of appeal, but the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1's evidence 2 to 4, Gap 3's evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff sought to cancel the instant right to collateral security against the Defendant, which is a claim for exclusion of interference based on the Plaintiff’s subordinated collateral security, without any preserved claim, and the Defendant, as the Defendant primarily established and implemented the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name, which is null and void as a litigation trust, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

Article 6 of the Trust Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, even if the act of establishing a right to collateral security is not a trust under the Trust Act.