1. On November 10, 2016, the Suwon District Court prepared a case of application for a voluntary auction of real estate C with Sung-nam District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. D around May 1, 2012, established and substantially operated the Plaintiff, and, around August 2013, had E with construction experience work as the vice-chairperson of the Plaintiff.

B. From around 2013, F, a tax accountant with the Defendant’s punishment, was delegated to the Plaintiff and G’s tax bookkeeping duties, and the Defendant, as an agent of F, was working as an employee of F, Tax Accountants’ office.

C. On November 2, 2015, E entered into an agreement with the Defendant and the Defendant on the transfer of the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) and the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant transfer agreement”) with the Defendant with respect to the Hanam-si H Building Nos. 103 106, 106 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Sungnam-nam District Court, Sungnam-nam Branch Office, which was completed on November 23, 2012 by receipt of No. 24478, and the same month in the same month.

6. The registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security in this case was completed.

On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff closed its business.

E. As to the instant real estate, the Suwon District Court started the procedure of the auction for the replacement of real estate in Sung-nam Branch C, and the above court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the amount of dividends to the Plaintiff was zero (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

F. The Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of dividends on the date of distribution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 14-1 to 3, Gap evidence 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety is unlawful since the J, which was recorded as the Plaintiff’s representative director, did not have the right to conduct business as the nominal representative director, and rather, E had been engaged in the Plaintiff’s business as the representative director.

In addition, it should be judged on the basis of the certified transcript of corporate register as to whether or not there is a representative authority of a juristic person.