1. Defendant among the distribution schedule prepared on December 7, 2016 by the said court with respect to C real estate auction cases.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty Company seeking the payment of the goods price of KRW 748,255,119 and damages for delay thereof (Seoul District Court 2015 Gohap 2015 Gohap 202166) and was rendered a favorable judgment. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On the other hand, on March 6, 2015, Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendants on the amount of KRW 763,736,00 with respect to E-gu, Daegu Northern-gu and KRW 1,404 square meters and F 827 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) with respect to the said real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On the same day, the Defendants completed the registration of the establishment of the instant mortgage agreement with the Defendants on the same day.

C. After that, at the request of the Industrial Bank of Korea, the Daegu District Court C, which was the first mortgagee with respect to the instant real estate, awarded a successful bid for the instant real estate to a third party. On December 7, 2016, the said auction court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 1,125,895,258 to the Industrial Bank of Korea, which was the first mortgagee, among the amount to be actually distributed, among the amount of KRW 1,528,501,476, and the said auction court: (a) KRW 274,69,929 to Defendant A, the second mortgagee, and KRW 127,936,289 to Defendant B.

The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the dividend amount to the Defendants, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the instant case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, and 4, each entry (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the defendants' loans against the non-party company exist

A. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties concerned did not have a claim against the non-party company, the Defendants conspired with G, the actual manager of the non-party company, and set up a false collateral security on the instant real estate for the purpose of evading obligations against the Plaintiff.

Even if the Defendants are non-party company.