A. On April 25, 2016, the Defendant issued a payment order with the purport that “the non-party company shall pay KRW 63,905,115 and delay damages therefrom to the Defendant” (U.S. District Court Decision 2016 tea3431), and the payment order was finalized on May 13, 2016.

B. After that, on June 27, 2016, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order against KRW 65,232,963 of the construction price against the Plaintiff of the non-party company upon receipt of the above payment order (Dong District Court 2016TTT7209; hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”), and the instant seizure and collection order were served on the Plaintiff, the garnishee on June 30, 2016.

C. In addition, on August 10, 2016, the Defendant issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 65,232,963 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom,” and the instant payment order became final and conclusive on August 31, 2016, by requesting a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the collection amount according to the instant payment order and the collection order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that, as an investor against the non-party company, the non-party company has a claim against the non-party company, and does not bear obligations such as construction cost, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted.

3. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against the claim is common.