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

A. From around 1978, Nonparty B imported and sells a ionion machine with the trade name of “C”, and thereafter, Nonparty B continued to establish and discontinue its business in succession with companies with the same business objective and organization, such as the Bank of Bankruptcy D, the Bank of Bankruptcy, the Bank of Bankruptcy, the Bank of Bankruptcy (Establishment of November 12, 2004), and the Bank of Bankruptcy, A, etc. for about 30 years.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim suit, such as indemnity money, etc. (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Ga5128457) with the Plaintiff as a creditor of indemnity payment, who subrogated to the beneficiary debt of the Plaintiff, as well as a joint defendant, by making the said dispute resolution committee and the Dispute Resolution Committee A as a joint defendant.

On July 17, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a judgment to the effect that “B, the Dispute Resolution E, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and A shall jointly and severally pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 56,163,60 and KRW 51,059,09,090 by subrogation,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute, A1 Certificate (including a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) 【Each entry】

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, in accordance with Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, the Defendant (established on December 10, 2013) is merely a company established by abusing the company system for the purpose of evading obligations of B, etc., with the aim of evading obligations of B, etc. due to substantially identical type, content, and form, organization, utility model (CI) with the company A, which was previously operated by B, the Defendant (established on December 10, 201) is merely a company established by abusing the company system, or belongs to its trade name by taking over the business of the above previous operation company. The Plaintiff

B. However, in full view of the opposing circumstances described below, the defendant was established in order for the defendant to discharge its liabilities, such as B, etc. in its hinterland, as the same company in substance as the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. or A.

by maintaining the business organization of the above previous companies as a whole or an important part of the company.