2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 375,840,00 won with 6% interest per annum from July 1, 2013 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person whose purpose is to manufacture automobile parts, etc., and the Defendant is a juristic person whose purpose is to manufacture and sell gold-type products.

B. During the period from December 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with the content that the Plaintiff manufactures gold surcharges to manufacture automobile parts and supplies them to the Defendant or accepts gold surcharges supplied by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 7 (including each number)

2. Determination as to the cause of claim, etc.

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

The fact that the Defendant had assumed to the Plaintiff the goods or the repair obligation as described in the following table may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as to the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 22 (including each serial number). Barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid goods or the repair obligation total amount of KRW 375,845,00,000 and delay damages.

B. Determination as to the legitimacy of part of the instant lawsuit

1) According to Article 41(1) and (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, where a claim is seized due to a default of national taxes, the obligor cannot pay the obligee’s obligation to the obligee, and the obligee cannot exercise the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2931, Jan. 17, 1989).

If a seizure and collection order is issued with respect to a claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888, Apr. 11, 200; hereinafter referred to as "No. 2 legal doctrine").

2) According to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6, the following facts may be recognized:

A) On June 3, 2013, the director of the tax office attached the amount up to KRW 110,452,230 of the Plaintiff’s amount of national taxes in total among the above goods or the repair payment claims, and notified the Defendant around that time.

B) On June 3, 2013, the director of the tax office attached an amount up to KRW 32,899,560, among the above goods or the repair payment claims of the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant around that time.

C) On July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff’s creditors Hanwon District Court issued a seizure and collection order (Seowon District Court Order 2013TTTT10925) regarding KRW 123,891,603 among the above goods or the repair price claims, and around that time, the above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant.

3) We examine this case in light of the above legal principles.

A) In light of the first legal principle, 143,351,790 won (i.e., KRW 110,452,230 + KRW 32,89,560) that was seized as a result of the disposition on default by the head of a tax office among the above goods or the repair price claims were lost the Plaintiff’s right to collect.

B) In light of the second legal doctrine, the Plaintiff’s right to collect KRW 123,891,603, among the above goods or the repair price claims, for which seizure and collection order was issued by the Gangnam of the hospital, was lost.

C) Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the sum of KRW 267,243,393 (i.e., KRW 143,351,790 +123,891,603) in the instant lawsuit is not eligible to bring a lawsuit seeking performance due to the Plaintiff’s loss of collection rights.

4) Of the instant lawsuits, the part claiming KRW 267,243,393 in its entirety is unlawful.

C. Judgment on the defendant's defense

1) During the period from November 1, 2012 to May 15, 2013, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 106,026,00 in total with the above goods or the repair payment obligations. On July 16, 2013, the Defendant asserted to the effect that since KRW 105,000,000 out of the above goods payment claims were transferred to Gong00, the Plaintiff does not have any obligation to pay any more to the Plaintiff.

2) According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 7, 11 through 14, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the facts that the defendant repaid a total of KRW 31,130,000 to the plaintiff as stated in the following table, and the plaintiff transferred a total of KRW 105,00,000 out of the above product price claim to the plaintiff on July 16, 2013 and notified the defendant accordingly. The plaintiff's defense is justified. Total amount of KRW 136,130,000 (=total of KRW 31,130,000 + + KRW 105,0000 + KRW 108,60,000) judged to be remaining as above. The plaintiff's claim for the payment or repair of the above product and the transfer of the above product price claim is extinguished. The defendant's defense is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim amounting to KRW 267,243,393 is unlawful and dismissed. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.