2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure against the non-party company’s claim for the amount of KRW 70 million out of the claim against the non-party company’s Defendant as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Kadan1047 (hereinafter “non-party company”) and received a provisional seizure order against the above court on March 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure order”), and served the Defendant on March 5, 2015.

B. On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against Nonparty Company (Seoul Southern District Court 2015 tea2802) with the Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court”) and received a payment order from the said court to the effect that “Nonindicted Company shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 126,538,524 and delay damages therefor,” and the said order was finalized on April 21, 2015.

C. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of the above payment order, transferred or additionally seized the provisional seizure of KRW 76,501,00 from the Seoul Southern District Court to the Defendant of the non-party company as the Seoul Southern District Court’s KRW 2015TT8466, and issued a decision ordering the collection thereof (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”), and the said decision was delivered to the Defendant on May 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s judgment on this issue sought payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Defendant according to the collection order of this case. Thus, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone existed the goods payment claim against the Defendant at the time the decision of provisional seizure of this case was served to the Defendant. Rather, in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 4, the transaction relation between the Nonparty Company and the Defendant is recognized as having been terminated on January 2015, which was before the provisional seizure order of this case

As to this, the Plaintiff’s instant case.