1. On November 7, 2016, the same court with respect to the Changwon District Court smuggling C and D (Joint) auction cases of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the purchase price of KRW 650 million to the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 889,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000 won for the intermediate payment of KRW 350,000,000,000,000 from the date of cancellation of the provisional registration established on the instant land, was paid after the completion of the building on the instant land. However, the Plaintiff agreed to cancel the registration of attachment and the provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal on the instant land until December 19, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

On November 24, 2014, the date of the instant contract, the Plaintiff received KRW 50 million from the Defendant, but did not cancel the registration of seizure and provisional disposition, which was completed on the instant land until December 19, 2014, and instead completed the registration of creation of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 450 million against Tae General Construction Co., Ltd. on December 23, 2014.

C. The Defendant received a provisional attachment order (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”) from the same court on November 26, 2015, on the following grounds: (a) the content of the claim against the Plaintiff regarding the 14 debentures of an aggregate building constructed on the instant land by Changwon District Court 2015Kadan1156 (hereinafter “instant building”).

On November 7, 2016, the auction court distributed KRW 100 million to the defendant who is the provisional seizure authority over the proceeds from the sale of the instant building on November 7, 2016 in the Changwon District Court C and D (Dual) where the land and building of this case were conducted by our Bank, and prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the surplus of KRW 133,332,852 to the plaintiff who is the debtor and the owner. Accordingly, the plaintiff raised an objection against the whole amount of dividends to the defendant.