1. The plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendant B and D are all dismissed.

2. Dated July 4, 2012 against Defendant C by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 60 million from Defendant B on July 4, 2012 as interest rate of KRW 1.5% (3% per month for overdue interest payment on the fourth day of each month and at least five (5) days overdue interest payment); and (b) borrowed on July 4, 2013 the due date; and (c) completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the Seoul Northern District Court Registry of Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul District Court No. 21707, Jul. 4, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). Defendant B filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate on November 4, 2013 with the Seoul Northern District Court E on the instant real estate on the ground that the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the principal and interest of the instant loan claims, and received a voluntary decision to commence the auction from the said court.

B. On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 63,195,616 as the principal and unpaid interest at the Seoul Central District Court KRW 23950,000,000 as the principal and unpaid interest at the Seoul Central District Court KRW 23950,000, the Plaintiff deposited the Plaintiff’s repayment deposit amounting to KRW 63,195,616.

(hereinafter “instant deposit”). C.

On December 17, 2013, Defendant B transferred the instant loan claim to Defendant C, and notified the Plaintiff of such transfer on February 24, 2014. On December 18, 2013, Defendant C completed the instant registration of transfer of collateral security on the ground of the transfer of confirmed claim on December 17, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legality of the lawsuit against the defendant B and D ex officio.

Although the Plaintiff sought confirmation that there is no debt of the instant loan against Defendant B and D, Defendant B and D did not dispute the Plaintiff’s existence of principal and interest liability of KRW 60 million based on the monetary loan agreement dated July 4, 2012, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is a benefit of confirmation.