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

A. On November 19, 2008, the Defendant issued a provisional attachment decision as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2008Kadan51489, Nov. 20, 2008, with the claim amounting to KRW 1,113,200,000 against the Plaintiff (i.e., loan claim of KRW 863,20,000 + obligation of KRW 250,000 + obligation of KRW 250,000) and completed the provisional attachment registration on November 20, 2008.

B. After that, on February 23, 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the money stated in the preceding paragraph with this court 2009Gahap2336, but this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on June 9, 2010. The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 10, 201 (Seoul High Court 201Da27172) through the appellate court (Seoul High Court 201Da27172).

C. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the ruling of provisional seizure with this Court 2010Kadan50976 on June 28, 2010, following the ruling of the first instance of the lawsuit on the merits of this case. On August 16, 2010, the court revoked the ruling of provisional seizure and dismissed the Defendant’s application for provisional seizure. As the said ruling became final and conclusive on August 28, 2010, the above provisional seizure registration completed on each real estate listed in the separate sheet was entirely revoked.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that although the defendant did not have any right to preserve the plaintiff, the plaintiff is responsible for compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the execution of unfair provisional seizure, since the plaintiff seized each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is owned by the plaintiff, as a claim claim, although he did not have any right to preserve the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant cannot be deemed to have suffered any loss due to the provisional attachment of the defendant, and even if the plaintiff suffered any loss due to domestic affairs, this could not be predicted by the defendant.