1. The Ulsan District Court shall authorize the final claim inspection judgment of 2015 Preamble17 dated August 25, 2015.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods and right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as “port metal”) supplied the Steinian Products to the Port Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Steinal Metal”), and the sum of the amount according to the evidence No. 2-1 through No. 7 as of April 24, 2012 as of April 24, 2012 is KRW 2,033,268,908, and thus, the “2,03,908,268,268,” written in the written complaint, appears to be a clerical error.

The claim for the purchase-price of goods was part of the claim that 1,639,295,249 won was paid.

On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on April 20, 2012 on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) in order to secure the claim for the payment of the goods on the port metal, and completed the registration of establishment of mortgage (order 7) with the Busan District Court’s 2,300,000 won as the maximum debt amount No. 23031 on April 23, 2012, as the receipt of No. 23031 on April 23, 2012.

Nos. 3 and 9 of A. The progress of the first rehabilitation procedure and the Ulsan District Court 2013 Ma21 of Ulsan District Court on March 26, 2013, the Defendant was granted a decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure (2013 Ma4, hereinafter “the first rehabilitation procedure”) at the Ulsan District Court on March 26, 2013, and B was appointed as the administrator of the debtor A corporation (hereinafter “the defendant’s status is indicated as the debtor within the rehabilitation procedure”) by the debtor A corporation (hereinafter “the debtor”).

In the first rehabilitation procedure on May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff reported KRW 1,639,295,249 to the Plaintiff as rehabilitation security right. The Defendant’s act of setting up a right to collateral security against the Plaintiff is under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

(1) On January 22, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant’s act of setting up a right to collateral security constitutes a biased act under Article 100(1)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (Ulsan District Court 2013 Ma2013), the said court held that the Defendant’s act of setting up a right to collateral security constitutes a biased act under Article 100(1)1