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

A. On April 7, 2017, C and the Defendant agreed to pay 50% of the proceeds from the completion of the building Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “the proceeds of this case”) to C, and written a statement of such agreement (hereinafter “instant statement of undertaking”).

B. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional seizure against the instant claim, based on the debtor C, the garnishee, the Defendant, the claim amounting to KRW 50 million, and the instant claim proceeds to be provisionally seized.

(Seoul Eastern District Court 2017Kadan5154)

C. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff received an order to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.

(Seoul Eastern District Court 2017 tea14234). D.

On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff received a collection order on the ground that the debtor C, the garnishee, the defendant, and the provisional seizure are the proceeds of the instant claim to be transferred and collected as the principal seizure.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts that there is no dispute over Seoul Eastern District Court 2017TTTT 55410. [Ground for Recognition], entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C and the Defendant’s promise of this case are KRW 4,351,095,500,000, and the Plaintiff received a payment order with the loan claim of KRW 50 million against C. Based on the above payment order, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order with respect to the instant revenue based on the above payment order, and thus, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,502,485 and delay damages.

3. Determination

A. (1) As seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to pay C the proceeds of this case after the settlement of expenses in accordance with the instant commitment, on the grounds that (1) C and the Defendant prepared the instant commitment.

(2) The Defendant asserts that, rather than having prepared the instant commitment as a genuine intent, it did not state that “any person shall withdraw and reverse the instant commitment at any time if it causes any problem by using the instant commitment and invalidate it.”