1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall render the Gwangju District Court with respect to the real estate stated in attached Table 2 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. For the purpose of establishing a safe and fresh system for the supply of fishery products to the Plaintiff for the prompt disposal, storage, and safe and fresh processing of fishery products (hereinafter “the instant subsidized projects”). From July 12, 2010 to November 9, 2010, the High interesting Group granted subsidies of KRW 824,414,00 in total, KRW 412,20,000 in the country subsidies from July 12, 201 to November 9, 2010 (hereinafter “instant subsidized projects”).

B. The Plaintiff newly constructed a building listed in Annex 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land listed in Annex 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership preservation on November 24, 2010. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on March 13, 2013.

C. On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage agreement on the instant land and building with the Defendant, and concluded a mortgage agreement on the instant land and building on the 25th of the same month, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of mortgage on the instant land and building with the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, the Plaintiff, the debtor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant mortgage”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged subsidy management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”) provides that “The subsidized project operator shall not use, transfer, exchange, or lend important property acquired by subsidies or the utility of which increases, which is determined by the Presidential Decree, for a purpose that violates the purpose of granting subsidies without the approval of the head of a central government agency after the completion of the relevant subsidy program, or provide it as a security,” and the said provision is invalid as an effective provision, and

However, the plaintiff is a subsidy paid pursuant to the Subsidy Act.