2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The co-ownership of land (hereinafter “Co-ownership”) is a company specializing in dismantling structures and removing asbestos, and entered into a contract for construction works as follows with the Defendant.

① Contract for the removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials among the demolition works for the removal of obstacles to the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government District on August 22, 2007. ② Contract for the removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials among the removal works for the removal of 3 lots outside the Seoul Metropolitan Area D on February 20, 208. ③ Contract for the removal and lease of the equipment for the redevelopment of housing in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-F District on April 10, 2008 (hereinafter “Third Contract”); ④ Contract for the removal and lease of the equipment for the redevelopment of housing in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H District on April 10, 2008. ⑤ Contract for the removal of asbestos-containing materials in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on April 208. 6 Contract for the removal of asbestos-containing materials from the hotel in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 2008.

B. The Seoul Eastern District Court 2009Kahap5917 rendered against the Defendant in the case of construction cost, the above court dismissed the Defendant’s remainder of construction work to be paid to the Defendant to the Defendant to the Defendant to the Defendant, on the aggregate of KRW 55,618,060, and KRW 125,537,611, as to the contract third, as to the contract third, and KRW 46,523,572, out of the remainder of construction work, and KRW 46,523,572, among the remainder of construction work, the part regarding the attachment and collection order, and KRW 68,51,61, as to the remainder of construction work.

After that, in the case of the Seoul High Court 2010Na5945, the appellate court of the above case, the above court considered that the whole claim for the construction cost against the defendant of the public official office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office was subject to the seizure and collection order by the public creditors of the branch office of the branch office.