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

A. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 11,000,000 to the Daegu Bank’s deposit account (Account Number: B) by mistake.

B. However, on June 20, 2013, Defendant Seogu Tax Office: (a) attached the claim amount of KRW 21,391,150 on June 20, 2013 to the deposit account of the Daegu Bank; (b) notified the Daegu Bank on June 21, 2013; and (c) Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation attached the claim amount of KRW 6,158,70 on April 3, 2014, including the sum of the delinquent health care premium, etc., to the claim amount; and (d) notified it to the Daegu Bank on April 4, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against A to return unjust enrichment of KRW 11,00,000,00 (Seoul Northern District Court 2014Daso5654), which was sentenced on March 18, 2015, and became final and conclusive around that time.

Based on the above final judgment, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order on June 8, 2015 with respect to the deposit claims of KRW 12,145,205 against the Daegu Bank of Daegu as the Seogu District Court Branch 2015TTT 415.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Daegu Bank to collect claims, but the claim collection was not made on the ground that A’s deposit claim existed with the instant seizure disposition.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s assertion was the Plaintiff’s ownership of KRW 11,00,000,000, which was erroneously remitted to the Daegu Bank account of A, the instant attachment disposition is null and void since the Defendants seized the Plaintiff’s assertion by deeming it as a responsible property of A

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The account transfer between banks.