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

A. On November 12, 2014, the lower court rendered a final decision that “The amount of litigation expenses that the Plaintiff shall reimburse to the Defendant by the judgment in the lawsuit claiming for the existence of the claim against the Plaintiff and the cancellation of the collateral security registration is KRW 2,115,200” on November 12, 2014, the lower court determined that “the amount of litigation expenses that the Plaintiff shall reimburse to the Defendant is KRW 2,115,200” was determined by the judgment in the lawsuit claiming for the establishment of the collateral security and the cancellation of collateral security registration between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which became final and conclusive at that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “determination of the amount of litigation costs of this case”) B.

The Defendant, on June 30, 2015, issued a collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) against “the portion of KRW 2,250,50,50 as the claim amount, 2,250,50, i.e., KRW 2,115,200, 135,30, as stipulated in the final decision of the amount of litigation costs of this case, out of the dividends ( earned surplus) that the Plaintiff possessed in the Republic of Korea with respect to the Seocho-Support C real estate auction case located in the Chuncheon District Court, as the executive title of the instant decision to determine the amount of litigation costs,” and around that time, received the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the instant collection order”) against “the third obligor,” as stipulated in the final decision of the amount of litigation costs of this case.

C. On May 29, 2017, the date of additional dividends (hereinafter “the instant additional dividends”) issued by the court of execution, in the case of the Seocho Branch C real estate auction in Chuncheon District Court, on May 29, 2017, an additional distribution schedule stating that KRW 2,250,50, out of the surplus funds to be reverted to the Plaintiff, the debtor and the owner, should be distributed to the Defendant, the collection authority under the instant collection order (hereinafter “instant additional distribution schedule”). D.

The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned additional date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 1, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 1, 1.