1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff Company A’s claim regarding the Seoul Central District Court T and U real estate delivery order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 15, 2003, the representative director of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each one-half portion of the building AB-598 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”) among AA and the Jongno-gu Seoul AB-598 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building,” and combined with the said land “instant real estate”).

B. On May 30, 2006, AC bank completed the registration of the right to collateral security with respect to the instant real estate as the debtor. On August 14, 2014, the claims of AC bank were transferred to AD corporation through a limited liability company specializing in asset-backed securitization, and the right to collateral security was also transferred to AD corporation. AE completed the registration with respect to the said company’s acquisition of the right to collateral security by transfer.

On December 7, 2015, with respect to the instant real estate upon the application of AE, the voluntary auction procedure began (Seoul Central District Court AF, hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and the Plaintiff A, B, C, and D asserted that the instant auction procedure had a claim for construction cost as to the instant building in the instant auction procedure, and reported the lien.

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 4, 2017 after the successful bid, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 4, 2017, the list of lessees attached to the instant real estate delivery order (hereinafter referred to as “instant delivery order”), the list of lessees attached to the written request for the delivery of real estate (hereinafter referred to as “the instant delivery order”), the number of each real estate delivery order indicated in the written request for the delivery of document as of August 31, 2017, and May 14, 2018, but it appears to be partly inconsistent with each real estate delivery order stated in the written request for the delivery of document as of May 14, 2018, since it appears to have disputed each of the real estate delivery order stated in the list of lessees attached to the written complaint as to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, it is subject to a specific dispute as an order for delivery of real estate:

was received.

(2) Case number;