A. The Plaintiff is a company whose principal business purpose is steel pipe manufacturing and sales business.

B. On March 30, 2011, the Defendant, as the Incheon District Court Decision 2011Kadan30177, issued a provisional seizure order on corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure order”), and completed its execution on April 12, 2011, with respect to the steel pipes owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the steel pipes of this case”), which the Plaintiff had been in custody for sale in Busan Seo-gu B and Busan Gangseo-gu warehouse C, with the secured claim against the Plaintiff as the secured claim.

C. On May 3, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant provisional attachment order, and the Defendant filed a loan claim lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 239,99,994 against the Plaintiff as Incheon District Court Decision 201Ga7204 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On December 9, 2011, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim in entirety on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant lent the said money to the Plaintiff.

The defendant appealed against the above judgment of the court of first instance (Seoul High Court 2012Na4154), and added the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff made unjust enrichment by gaining profit equivalent to the above money without any legal ground. However, on September 19, 2012, the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing all the defendant's appeal on the ground that the defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff lent the above money to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained any profit equivalent to the above money without any legal ground, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 12, 2012.

E. The Plaintiff filed an application for revocation of provisional attachment with the Incheon District Court 201Kahap2096, and the above court rendered a decision to revoke the provisional attachment order of this case on September 21, 2012 on the ground that the judgment against the Defendant was rendered in the lawsuit on the merits of this case.