1. As to the Plaintiff, as to the Dogsan-si D 245.9 square meters:

A. Defendant B is the ASEAN Branch of Daejeon District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate indicated in the disposition (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is owned by the Plaintiff. Around August 10, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 120 million from Defendant B, and as a security, borrowed KRW 120,000,000 from Defendant B, the Daejeon District Court rendered a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on August 24, 2012 to Defendant B as the receipt registration office of the Daejeon District Court’s branch office located in the Daejeon District Court.

B. On November 27, 2012, Defendant B filed a principal registration of transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration under the Act No. 77468, which was received on November 27, 2012.

C. On December 9, 2013, Defendant B sold the instant real estate to Defendant C, and Daejeon District Court’s Busan District Court’s Masan Branch Office on January 21, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C was completed as of January 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, each entry of Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the above facts, the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for security under Article 1 of the Provisional Registration Security Act (hereinafter “Provisional Registration Act”), and the principal registration of Defendant B’s name is valid, it shall be proved that the provisional registration of this case had undergone liquidation procedures under Articles 3 and 4 of the Act on the Participation.

B. The evidence No. 4-1 cannot be used as evidence for the lack of any evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence, and the remainder of the evidence No. 4-2, No. 5, and No. 6 are insufficient to deem that Defendant B had gone through legitimate liquidation procedures between the Plaintiff, the debtor, at the time of this registration, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Defendant B asserts to the effect that the transfer of ownership in Defendant B’s name is effective registration consistent with the substantive relationship, as long as two months have elapsed since the notification was made to the Plaintiff and the notification was made. However, Defendant B’s claim amount is deducted from the market price of the instant real estate.