A. The Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment on the claim for the amount of KRW 365,227,466 against Ethyd Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Ethyd Co., Ltd.”) as the preserved right, and filed an application for provisional attachment on the claim for the amount of KRW 70,000,000 against Ethyd Co., Ltd’s Defendant as the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan2055. On June 13, 2012, the said court issued a provisional attachment order (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment order”).

B. Before the decision of provisional attachment of this case, ABD's claim for the price of goods against ABD's Defendant was rendered by the creditors of EBD prior to the provisional attachment of this case as described below.

The name of the goods-price claim amount subject to provisional attachment as of the date of provisional attachment decision of creditor shall be the Daegu District Court Decision 2012Kadan4642, May 30, 2012, 2012, Daegu District Court Decision 2012Kadan4642, Jun. 1, 2012, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Kadan2002, Jun. 1, 2012, 2012, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Kadan202, Jun. 12, 2012, 200,000,000 Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Kadan1974, Jun. 14, 2012

C. Notwithstanding the foregoing decision on provisional seizure, etc., the Defendant paid Ethyi (i.e., KRW 4,812,720 on Sept. 20, 2012 and KRW 24,063,60 on Nov. 20, 2012) the total amount of KRW 19,250,880 on Sept. 20, 2012.

Since then, regarding the claim for the purchase price of goods against the defendant Ethyi, the collection order was issued as stated below.

[Dissenting] The claim amount filed on the date of the collection order and the creditor's attachment and collection order, the case name of the defendant, which is the date of service of the defendant, shall be the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013TTTTTT14352, Jun. 4, 2013, B00, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013TTT17897, Jun. 5, 2013.

On September 26, 2013, the Defendant deposited KRW 42,847,200 for Ethydydydye (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013No. 20185) pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the grounds of competition of seizure, and the above two claims are seized and seized in the list of the persons to whom the report on the reason of deposit was filed.