1. Defendant B: (a) with respect to the Plaintiff’s 4,304 square meters prior to Sung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; and (b) machinery, including gender support by the Daegu District Court; and (c) on September 200.

1. As to the claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. As to the claim against the defendant in Korea

A. Fact 1) The land listed in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition No. D owned by D (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

As to September 23, 200, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of B and the name of B as stated in the Disposition No. 1 of this case was completed (hereinafter “the instant mortgage”).

(2) On August 24, 2016, the Defendant seized the instant collateral security claims against B with respect to D, and completed the registration of seizure of collateral security claims with respect to the registration of the establishment of the said collateral security claims with the same registry office No. 14430, Aug. 30, 2016.

3) On December 21, 2016, E completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land. The Plaintiff purchased the said land to E on February 13, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on February 22, 2017. (B) Determination 1) The right to collateral security is a mortgage which is established by reserving the confirmation of the obligation in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act) and is established for the purpose of securing a certain limit at the end of the future settlement period. As such, the right to collateral security has to be established separately from the act of creation of the right to collateral security (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act). The burden of proof as to whether there was a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act).

On the other hand, if a claim with a right to collateral is seized, the purpose of registering the seizure of the secured claim by means of additional registration in the establishment registration of the right to collateral is to attach the secured claim if the secured claim with a right to collateral is seized, the seizure of the secured claim becomes invalid even in the right to collateral, which is subordinate to the secured right.