1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Suwon District Court C(D) is the Suwon District Court.

1. On July 28, 2010 with respect to the land F and G (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was completed on July 28, 2010 with respect to the Defendant Company I (hereinafter “I”) with respect to the land owned by the Plaintiff.

In an auction procedure (U.S. District Court C) commenced on December 7, 2010 with respect to the instant land, the Suwon District Court prepared a distribution schedule that the Defendant distributes KRW 172,289,027 out of the amount to be actually distributed on June 24, 2011.

Accordingly, the plaintiff raised an objection to the above dividend amount against the defendant on the date of distribution.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleading

b. Responsibility for acting as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the dividend against the Defendant is unlawful since E or H, who had no authority to act on his behalf, established the instant right to collateral security in mind, and thus, the instant right to collateral security was null and void.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was responsible for the creation of the instant right to collateral security by E or H pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act, since there was a justifiable reason to believe that E or H was authorized to do so at the time of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security.

2. In order to claim the effect of an expression agency in excess of the authority prescribed in Article 126 of the Civil Act as to the requirements for liability for expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, the requirement that the other party believe that he/she has the right of representation on his/her own behalf and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the other party has the right of representation on his/her own behalf, in cases where he/she explicitly

A juristic act other than authority has been done through a private person or a sub-agent appointed at his own discretion.