1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “the instant loan”) to E’s representative director of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) to E, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the said loan obligation.

B. However, E did not repay the above loan to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2014, which was the due date for repayment of the above loan debt.

On December 30, 2015, Defendant B entered into an accord and satisfaction contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to pay KRW 300 million out of the instant loans as the movable property owned by Defendant B, and the said movable property continues to be occupied and used by Defendant B, and delivered it to the Plaintiff by way of conceptually transferring the possession to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant movable property.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant B’s creditors, Defendant B, C, and D provisionally seized three lots of land, factory sites, and buildings on the ground, and G, forest land, etc. (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Defendant B, the mortgagee of the instant real estate, Defendant Jeonbuk Bank, and factories and mining foundations mortgage (hereinafter “instant factory mortgage”) on the instant real estate and its ground factory machinery, etc., the Industrial Bank of Korea established by Defendant B, which were the mortgagee of the instant real estate, applied for a voluntary auction against the instant real estate and its ground factory machinery, etc. (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). D., the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea, which was established by Defendant B, applied for a voluntary auction against the instant real estate and its ground machinery, etc.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant movable property is likely to result in compulsory execution against the said movable property during the instant auction procedure. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s remaining Defendants except the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea who left the instant lawsuit and the Intervenor succeeding to the Industrial Bank of Korea.