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

A. The Defendant, under the name of “A”, is a legal entity that aims to establish and operate nursery facilities under the Infant Care Act, and B was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant’s legal entity on November 19, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, etc., the Defendant’s representative director, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da5322922, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,00 and damages for delay thereof jointly and severally, on condition that B, made payment within the scope of KRW 9,880,000,00.

C. After that, based on the foregoing judgment on January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued an assignment order and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) with respect to the claim for benefits of “the amount calculated by subtracting the tax and public charges from the amount of salaries (main salaries and allowances) and the end-of-date allowances (in the case of salaries and allowances) received monthly by the Defendant from the Defendant and the Defendant B, until they reach the claim amount of KRW 179,591,781, whichever is less, and if they retired from the claim amount of KRW 1/2 of the balance calculated by deducting the tax and public charges from the retirement allowances, the Plaintiff received the assignment order and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) from the Defendant on January 26, 2017.” The order was served on the Defendant on January 26, 2017.

Article 23 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that “An executive officer of a corporation shall serve without pay, but he/she may be paid actual expenses necessary for the activities of an executive within budgetary limits.” Article 24 of the Articles of incorporation provides that “The director shall not concurrently serve as an employee of the relevant facility except the head of the social welfare facility established by

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged and determined that B has a benefit claim against the defendant, and thus, he/she sought full payment as a whole creditor of the above benefit claim. Thus, the above recognition is based on the premise that B has a benefit claim against the defendant.